SHANKAR BHAGWANJEE Vs. RAM AUTAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUB -section (1) of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act converted limited ownership right of a female in any land or property into full ownership. The appellants in the instant case claims to have obtained the land in question by way of gift from a lady. The land in question was recorded in the name of the private respondents in the revisional survey records. On the basis thereof, the register of land was prepared. Accordingly, the appellants lodged an objection. The original authority held that by reason of reversion, the private respondents became the owners of the land in question and the lady had only a right of maintenance from the land in question. The appellants then approached the appellate authority who held in no uncertain terms that the husband of the lady, who was the owner of the land in question, died in the year 1932 -33 and, accordingly, she did not acquire any limited ownership right in the land in question and as such could not give the same by way of gift to anyone. This finding may be a right finding or may not be a right finding, but it was a finding and to the notice of the appellants. The appellants had an opportunity to challenge this finding by filing a revision application and they did so but, however, did not bring on record anything to challenge this finding. As a result, the revisional authority also held that the lady from whom the appellants obtained by way of gift the land in question had no disposable interest in the land in question and, accordingly, the objection is not sustainable.

(2.) THE appellants then filed a writ petition. Again in the writ petition nothing was brought on record to suggest that the said finding was an improper or incorrect finding or that the lady in question, in fact, acquired limited ownership right in the land in question prior to coming into force of the 1956 Act and thereupon her limited interest stood converted into full interest, and as such she acquired full disposable right in the land in question at the time of making the gift.

(3.) HAVING regard to the nature of the claims and contentions, the authorities exercising powers under the Consolidation Act had no other option but to proceed on the basis that the persons, who have been listed as raiyats in the revisional survey, are the persons entitled to hold the subject land and accordingly they should be recorded in the register of land. The presumption as to the correctness of the register of land as well as of the records of right is a rebuttable presumption and may be rebutted by taking an appropriate alea and establishing the same by adequate evidence. Despite having had such opportunity before the consolidation authorities, the appellants failed to do so and accordingly they have been granted an opportunity to redo the same but after the consolidation proceeding is over by approaching the court.