SOM NATH Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Appeal Nos. 883 of 1976 and 884 of 1976 filed by Som Nath. Appellant in both these appeals is the same person but the respondents are different. In Appeal No. 883 of 1976 Ishar Kaur and others are the respondents and in Appeal No. 884 of 1976 Labh Singh etc. are the respondents. These arise out of the single judgment. The facts giving arise to these appeals are as under :-

(2.) Mr. Behl, learned counsel for the appellant, canvassed before me that protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is available in this case to the appellant vendee, who is a bona fide purchaser for consideration from the true and ostensible owners. His argument is that the vendors during the life-time of Mukadam Singh were his Mukhtiar-I-Am and the property used to be leased out to the appellant by them, that after his death mutation was also entered in their names; that the proprietary rights were also conferred by the Central Government on them and that the appellant verified all these facts and considered them to be the ostensible owners; purchased the land in dispute for consideration and that the Courts have gone wrong in holding otherwise. It is true that the proprietary rights were conferred on the vendors. It is also true that the mutation was entered in their names and during the life-time of Mukadam Singh they used to lease out the land on his behalf. Mr. Behl also relied upon two judgments of this Court in Kali Ram and others V. Union of India and others, 1976 78 PunLR 475, and Rattan Singh and another V. Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana and others, 1978 PunLJ 47. In Kali Ram's case it was held that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the bona fide purchaser for consideration. In this case the Central Government had conferred proprietary rights on the vendor. The vendor subsequently sold the property to the plaintiffs. In the mean-time the Central Government cancelled the proprietary rights and in that situation, it was held that the vendees' rights were to be protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as the Central Government had conferred the rights on the vendor and on the basis of those proprietary rights the vendees purchased from the vendor. Thus he was a bona fide purchaser and is protected under Section 41 of the Act as the Central Government had conferred the rights on the vendor and on the basis of those proprietary rights the vendees purchased from the vendor. Thus, he was a bona fide purchaser and is protected under Section 41 of the Act as the Central Government had impliedly given consent to the transaction. In Rattan Singh's case the observations are similar and are in the following terms :-

(3.) In support of his contention, Mr. Behl also relied upon Md. Din V. Mt. Sardar Bibi,1927 AIR(Lah) 666and Shamsher Chand V. Bakhshi Mehr Chand,1947 AIR(Lah) 147