SAVITRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, State as also private Respondent No. 5.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.11.2000, Annexure -2, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram in Mutation Appeal No. 83 of. 2000 -01, whereunder learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram set aside the order dated 3.12.1999, Annexure -1, passed by the Circle Officer, Kargahar mutating the lands in question in favour of the petitioner. She is further aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2001, Annexure -3, passed by the Collector, Rohtas in Mutation Revision Case No. 68 of 2000, Annexure -3, whereunder he affirmed the appellate order dated 24.11.2000, Annexure -2. Petitioner is the donee of the lands in question vide registered gift deed dated 29.5.1998 executed by Nainbas Kuer, wife of Bilatu, Pathak. The lands in question were recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of the father -in -law of Nainbas Kuer, Satya Narain Pathak who had three sons, namely, Hari Narain Pathak, Bilatu Pathak and Sheo Shankar Pathak. It is her further case that after the death of her father -in -law, Satya Narain Pathak, there was partition between his three sons. After partition between the sons of Satya Narain Pathak, Bilatu Pathak died issueless leaving behind his wife, Nainbas Kuer. Nainbas Kuer inherited the entire estate of her husband. Later, Nainbas Kuer became old and out of her love and affection for the petitioner as also in recognition of the services rendered by her, executed gift deed dated 29.5.1998 as also put the petitioner in possession of the lands in question.

(3.) BY filing the present writ application, petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated 24.11.2000, Annexure -2 and the revisional order dated 25.5.2001, Annexure -3 and has submitted that Satya Narain Pathak, the recorded tenant died sometime in the year 1980, whereafter there was partition between his three sons, Hari Narain Pathak, Bilatu Pathak and Sheo Shankar Pathak, Respondent No. 5. After partition between the three brothers, each of them came in separate possession of their share. Bilatu Pathak died issueless leaving behind his wife and the estate of Bilatu Pathak devolved up on his wife, Nainbas Kuer, the doner. It is further submitted that Nainbas Kuer became old and out of her love and affection as also in recognition of the services rendered by the petitioner, who happens to be the daughter -in -law of, Hari Narain Pathak, executed the deed of gift in her favour as also put her in possession of the lands in question. In this connection, it is pointed out that after the death of Bilatu Pathak, his estate was inherited and possessed by Nainbas Kuer, she was competent to execute the deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Ram and Anr. v. Gauri Shankar and Anr. reported in : [1968]1SCR476 . Learned Counsel further contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act, Article 258 of the Mullah Hindu Law has no application to the facts of the case in hand.