SUKHDEV Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS and respondent -2 are sons of late Devi Ditta from different wives.Respondent -2 from the first wife whereas petitioners are from the second wife. Devi Ditta died in the year 1953 and his estate devolved upon the petitioners and respondent -2. Mutation No. 31 came to be attested on 14.6.1955 in favour of the petitioners and respondent -2 where under 50% share of the estate of the deceased , has been allowed in favour of petitioners and 50% in favour of respondent -2 on the basis of some alleged custom of " Choonda Wand" . At the time of death of Devi Ditta, rule of inheritance was governed by old Hindu Law and was based upon the rule of survivorship. Two collaterals of Devi Ditta namely; Charan Dass and Sadhu Ram also had landed property . Charan Dass died issueless in the year 1953 and his share in the estate devolved upon his real brother Sadhu Ram. Sadhu Ram also died issueless in the year 1955. His estates also devolved upon the petitioners and respondent -2 being collaterals under the law of survivorship. Another Mutation No. 40 of village Mukra Tehsil Jammu came to be attested in favour of petitioners and respondent -2 on 27.5.1958 relating to the estate of Charan Dass/Sadhu Ram. Under this mutation also, the property was mutated in the ratio of 50 : 50 allegedly on the basis of " Choonda Wand" custom.

(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioners that the estates devolved upon them and respondent -2 was joint and in the year 1998, they wanted to partition the same. It was at this stage that respondent -2, demanded half share in the land with the petitioners. Thhereafter, petitioners came to know of attestation of Mutations Nos. 31 and 40. They accordingly obtained copies of the said mutations and filed a revision petition before the Joint Settlement Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Settlement Commissioner ) on 8.5.1998 challenging Mutation No. 40 . Said revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.8.1999 by the Joint Settlement Commissioner with the following observations: "I have gone through the record available on the file carefully. From the perusal of the records, these things emerges: (i) Sadhu deceased issueless during the year 4.1.1955 much before the Hindu Succession Act came into force; (ii) Inheritance of Devi Ditta father of the parties which was attested on 14.6. 1955 has not been challenged by the petitioners . It is time barred as has been held by the Honble High Court, J&K. As such there seems no need to interference in the impugned orders. Hence the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to records."

(3.) PETITIONERS preferred two revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner on 24.11.1999 against the order passed by the Joint Settlement Commissioner as also the Mutation No. 31 passed by the Naib Tehsildar. Both these revision petitions also came to be rejected on 25.7.2001 by the Financial Commissioner on two grounds: (i) that the property has devolved upon the parties on the basis of custom of "Choonda Wand" which was prevalent at the relevant time; and (ii) that the revision petitions are barred by time. These two orders dated 25.7.2001 passed by the Financial Commissioner and the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by the Joint Settlement Commissioner, have been assailed in the present petition.