MT AJHOLA KUAR Vs. MTBAL KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision arise out of the same orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Gaya in a reference under Section 55, Land Registration Act.

(2.) It appears that one Padarath Singh died possessed of certain proprietary interest in a number of villages, leaving him surviving his widow, Musammat Sakal Kuar. It is also alleged that he was survived by two daughters, the two petitioners in the revisional applications before this Court. On his death, Musammat Sakal Kuar got herself registered as his heir and legal representative in the Collector's D Register in respect of the proprietary interest in those villages. With her consent, Musammat Bal Kuar and Musammat Jararo Kuar, the two widowed daughters-in- law of the propositus, were also allowed to be entered along with the widow in the Collector's registers. That mutation was made sometime in 1923, and the following orders of the Land Registration Deputy Collector passed on 23-1-1923, are rather significant: The title of Mt. Sakal Kuar to succeed to her husband's property is indisputable. The title of the two-widowed "daughters-in-law may very well be questioned. Mt. Sakal Kuar has no objection to the mutation of their names along with her; rather she wishes it, The Musammat is a limited owner, i.e. whatever she does in regard to the property of her late husband will have effect only till her life time. There seems to be no objection in allowing the mutation of their names along with her... OJ course, after the death of the widow, her actions will not be binding upon the reversioners. In these circumstances I allow the mutation of the applicant names and disallow the objections. Things stood like that until Musammat Sakal Kuar died in February 1942. On her death, the two petitioners made several applications for the mutation of their names, each claiming to be recorded with respect to the entire sixteen annaa interest in the inheritance of their alleged father, Padarath Singh. These applications of the alleged daughters of Padarath Singh were opposed by the two daughters-in-law aforesaid, who already stood recorded along with Musammat Sakal Kuar. The Land Registration Deputy Collector allowed the petitioner's applications for registration, holding that they were the daughters of the propositus, and that their evidence of possession, though meagre, might be in conjunction with their superior title, preferred to the evidence of possession given by the objectors, the daughters in-law. Those orders were set aside by the Collector who held that the daughters in-law were in possession, and, therefore, should be recorded in the Collector's Register. The Collector's orders were upheld on appeal to the Commissioner. The Board of Revenue was moved by the petitioners, and the Board, not being satisfied with the approach to the case by the subordinate Courts, passed the following orders: It seems to the Board that, as both title and possession are the subject of vehement dispute, this is eminently one of those oases which should properly be determined by a civil Court. It is, therefore, ordered that the Collector should refer the matter in dispute, under Section 65, Land Registration Act, to the Principal Civil Court of the District.

(3.) On this reference, the parties, before the Civil Court appears to have agreed that the matter might be decided on the evidence already recorded by the Revenue Courts. Hence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Mr. Samad, before whom the matter was fought out, purported to determine the questions before him on the evidence already recorded by the Revenue Courts. The learned Subordinate Judge was inclined to think that the reference to the Civil Court under Section 65, Land Registration Act was incompetent, inasmuch as the Collector had decided the question of possession in favour of the objectors, the daughters-in-law. He also adopted the finding of the Revenue Courts that the petitioners were as a matter of fact, the daughters of the propositus Padarath.