GURUCHARAN SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below which are to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents namely Surjit Kaur, Gurmail Kaur and Gurmit Kaur are the daughters of late Amar Singh and on that basis being Class-I legal heirs they were entitled to inherit the estate of their father after his death. It has further been held that defendant-respondents Inder Singh and Baru Singh, who are brothers of Amar Singh, were Class-II legal heirs (Now represented by their legal representatives respondents No. 4 to 12) and they were not entitled to inherit the estate of Amar Singh during the lifetime of his Class-I legal heirs namely the plaintiff-respondents and their mother. The mutation No. 1559 in respect of the inheritance of Amar Singh sanctioned in favour of Inder Singh and Baru Singh has also been held to be illegal, null and void which has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff-respondents because mere entry of mutation does not confer title.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a Civil Suit No. 456 of (sic) 28-4-1999 for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of 1/9th share out of the land fully described in the head note of the plaint and the mutation of inheritance of their father Amar Singh entered in favour of the defendant-respondents Inder Singh and Baru Singh was illegal, null and void. It was further claimed that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant-appellants were of no effect and were liable to be set aside. Another prayer made was for joint possession to the extent of 1/9th share of the suit land. Amar Singh, father of the plaintiff-respondents was a co-sharer in possession of 1/9th share in the suit land. He died 35 years ago preceding the date of filing the suit when his wife and three daughters who are plaintiffs-respondents were alive. On the basis of a false pedigree table in connivance with the Lamberdar of the village. Inder Singh and Baru Singh brothers of the Amar Singh got mutation sanctioned in their favour at the back of the plaintiff-respondents and their mother, which is subject-matter of challenge in the suit. Baru Singh and Inder Singh also died and after their death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of their widows, daughters and sons. It is claimed that the plaintiff-respondents were owners to the extent of 1/9th share which belongs to their father Amar Singh and the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of Baru Singh and Inder Singh was illegal. null and void. It has further been claimed that plaintiff-respondents were minors at the time of death of Amar Singh and thereafter, Baru Singh and Inder Singh used to give wheat from that land to the mother of the plaintiff-respondents which created the impression that mutation was sanctioned in their name in respect of the land of their father. It was revealed only when the mother of plaintiff-respondents died that an enquiry was made from the Patwari for the purpose of sanctioning of mutation of inheritance of the estate of their mother for sanctioning the same in their name which resulted in filing of the suit.

(3.) The defendant-respondents raised various issues like concealment of facts, limitation, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, ownership of Amar Singh in respect of the suit land was also denied. It was claimed that Amar Singh had died unmarried and issueless and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondents were not his legal heirs. Mutation No. 1559 was claimed to have been rightly sanctioned and that Inder Singh and Baru Singh were legal heirs of deceased-Amar Singh. Therefore, transfer deeds executed in favour of defendant-appellants were valid transferring valid title. The defendant-appellants took the stand that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable considerations and also placed reliance on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity 'the Act').