CHINTO Vs. NARINJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises the question whether it is open to a person to withdraw a gratuitous admission made by him on a pure question of law.

(2.) IT appears that on the 4th July 1899 one Udmi, a sonless proprietor, transferred by way of gift a plot of land measuring 59 bighas 10 biswas to his pichhlag son by the name of Badhawa. The collaterals of Udmi challenged the validity of the gift but the parties came to a compromise that on the death of Udmi 1/3rd of the ancestral land was to devolve on Badhawa and the remaining 2/3rd on the collaterals. This agreement does not appear to have terminated the dispute and the matters in controversy between the parties were eventually referred to an arbitrator who gave his award on the 16th April 1914. According to his award badhawa was to give 15 bighas of land to the collaterals immediately and was to become the exclusive owner of the remaining portion of the property. A decree in terms of the award was passed by the Council of Regency Kalsia on the 25th April 1914. The collaterals did not take possession of the property to which they were entitled under the award but when Badhawa died in the year 1943 they took possession of the entire property belonging to him. Chinto and Kartaro, daughters of Badhawa, objected to the highhandedness of the collaterals in taking pos session of the land belonging to their father and the revenue officers of the Kalsia State set up an enquiry as to the person or persons who were entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased. On the 8th July 1944 the daughters submitted an application to the revenue authorities in which they admitted that the collaterals alone were entitled to succeed and that the daughters had no right or interest whatsoever in the land. The revenue officers, however, mutated 67 bighas of land in favour of the daughters on the 19th April 1946 not withstanding the admissions made by the daughters.

(3.) A few days later, that is on the 23rd April, 1946 the collaterals brought a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to remain in possession of the property. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the collaterals on the ground that although the land which was transferred by Udmi to Badhawa in the year 1899 was non-ancestral qua the collaterals and although Badhawa had become the absolute owner thereof the daughters had re- linquished their right to this land in their application to the revenue authorities in the year 1944 and were not entitled to the property in question. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the learned district Judge and later by a learned Single Judge of the Pepsu High Court. The daughters were dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below and have come to this Court in appeal under Section 52 of Ordinance No. 10 of 2005 Bk.