SATNAM SINGH Vs. MALKIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, Hazara Singh was the owner of the property in question. He allegedly made a gift of the property on 27.10.1960 in favour of Shri Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh further sold the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 7.8.1961 in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. It is also proved on record that Shri Hazara Singh executed a sale deed Ex. P. 1 on 27.7.1977 in favour of the plaintiff. Shri Hazara Singh also executed a sale deed dated 27.7.1977 in favour of the successful plaintiff whose suit has been decreed by the Courts below.

(2.) The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that when Hazara Singh was not the owner of the property as on 27.7.1977, no right, title or interest stands conferred upon the plaintiff. The counsel submitted that though the gift deed dated 27.1.1966 has not been formally placed and proved on the record yet the sale deed dated 7.8.1961 Ex. DW2/A makes mention of the gift deed dated 27.10.1960 and moreover, the sale deed dated 7.8.61 is signed by Shri Hazara Singh, therefore, it has to be inferred that the sale deed dated 7.8.61 conveys a good right, title or interest in favour of the defendants and in these circumstances, the sale deed dated 27.7.1977 will not confer any right or title to the plaintiff. It was further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants mainly on the plea that mutation on the basis of the sale deed dated 7.8.61 has not been effected in the revenue record. The counsel submitted that it is a settled principle of law that mutation per se does not convey any right, title or interest. It is only an entry about the ownership of the property.

(3.) I have considered these submissions raised by the counsel for the appellant. It may look alluring but on the deepest scrutiny it is without any merit. Once the foundations are not proved how the building can stand. Unfortunately for the defendants, the gift deed dated 27.10.1960 has not been placed or proved on the record only there is recital of this gift deed in the sale deed dated 7.8.61. Once a valid title does not go to Shri Gurdev Singh on the basis of the gift deed dated 27.10.1960, Gurdev Singh further cannot convey a better title vide sale deed dated 7.8.1961. In the revenue record the property remained in the name of Shri Hazara Singh who sold the property in question on 27.7.1977 to the plaintiff and delivered the possession. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed because the defendants did not get a good title by virtue of the sale deed dated 7.8.1961 Ex. DW2/A.