MANN SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this appeal came to be admitted on 5.5.1980, no substantial question of law was framed, however, at the time of hearing, following substantial questions of law were projected by the counsel for the parties :

(2.) IT is appropriate to notice the factual background of the case. Charanjit Singh and Teja Singh sons of Gurbux Singh were owners of land in equal shares. Charanjit Singh executed Tamliknama on 6.10.1956 in respect of 300 bighas of land, out of the total land described in the plaint in favour of Ravinder Kaur, his daughter who is the plaintiff in the suit. The land described in the Tamliknama was allegedly situated in Village Khaspur Tehsil Patiala. Admittedly, Ravinder Kaur was minor at the time of execution of Tamliknama. Charanjit Singh sold the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 30.12.1957. Even after the sale of the aforesaid property in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Charanjit Singh executed a rectification deed on 17.7.1958 and allegedly rectified the Tamliknama dated 6.10.1956 by substituting the name of the Village Khaspur to Village Mahla Heri. Since Charanjit Singh was a big landlord who was required to seek pegnission/sanction for transfer of property, accordingly he obtained sanction for sale on 3.12.1957 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 Kultar Kaur sold part of the land purchased by her in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6 vide sale deed dated 11.12.1959 through Sadhu Singh, father of defendant No. 1 as her attorney which was duly witnessed by Charanjit Singh.

(3.) AFTER the parties led their respective evidence, issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 9 were taken up together for consideration. The trial court, while considering the aforementioned issues returned a finding that Charanjit Singh was possessed of the land in excess of the permissible limits, but it was not accompanied with the delivery of possession of the gifted land which was essential to complete the gift and thus, the Tamliknama was not a valid document. Hence plaintiff has failed to prove that she is owner of the land in dispute. While considering issue No. 2, the trial court relied upon Khasra Girdawari, Ex.P2, P3, P4 and P19 and formed opinion that the plaintiff was in possession of land mentioned in para "Urra" of the headnote of the plaint since 1956 and the land mentioned in para "Arra" of the headnote is in possession of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 Dilip Singh and Chanan Singh. While deciding issues Nos. 6, 11 and 12, the trial court also came to the conclusion that the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was without consideration, but sale in favour of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 was held to be bona fide. However, in ultimate analysis, the plaintiff's possession was protected to the extent land is mentioned in para "Urra" and other relief in the plaint was denied vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.1976.