SUSHIMA KISHANDEV KAUSHAL Vs. COUNCIL FOR TIBETAN EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Smt. Suhshima Kishandev Kaushal has filed the present suit for declaration and possession of certain property, described in the following sentence, pleading the following cause of action. The plaintiff purchased land measuring 14 Kanals, 11 Marias, bearing Khasra Nos. 1208/1153, 1089, 1061, 1152/1990, along with the super structures standing thereon and land measuring 5337.25, bearing Khasra Nos. 590, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 and 607, situated in Dharamshala, District Kangra in the year 1962. The sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff out of her own funds and some portion of the money was contributed by her father-in-law late Shri Paras Ram Kaushal. Mutations were also entered and attested in favour of the plaintiff. Late Smt. Raj Kumari Bhardwaj, who was the mother of the plaintiff, started looking after the two properties, which shall hereinafter be referred to as suit property. She died on 2-7-1991.

(2.) In February 1992 the plaintiff, accompanied by her husband, visited Dharamshala to take charge of the suit property. She had never visited Dharamshala from 1969 to 1992, because she ordinarily resided in Bombay and abroad and most of the time she was in London. When she went to Dharamshala in February 1992, it was found that the defendant had built some structures on the suit property after demolishing the old structures, which were known as 'Retreat'. The plaintiff then made enquiries with the defendant and also consulted the revenue record and came to know that on 15-3-1969 mutation had been attested in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari Bhardwaj, the mother of the plaintiff, showing her to be the owner of the suit property on the strength of some affidavit, purporting to have been sworn by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never swore any affidavit in favour of her mother nor did she ever give any authority or right to her mother to deal with her property. Therefore, the aforesaid order of mutation was void ab initio. Otherwise also, the order of mutation was bad in law, because no notice of the proposed order of mutation was ever given to the plaintiff. The order of mutation is alleged to have been procured in her favour, by the mother of the plaintiff, in connivance with the Revenue officials. On the basis of the aforesaid order of mutation dated 15-3-1969, entries appeared in the Jamabandi showing the mother of the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit property.

(3.) On 7-7-1979 the mother of the plaintiff sold the suit property to the defendant for a paltry sum of Rs. 64,000/-. The mother of the plaintiff, being not the owner of the suit property, did not have any authority to sell the same. Therefore, the sale made by her is illegal, void and of no consequence on the right of the plaintiff.