DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. KARTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision has arisen under the following circumstances. Mt. Bakhtawari widow of Chuhra, caste Jat, owns a considerable area of land in the village Naugiari in Kharar Tehsil in the District Ambala. On 20 May 1942 she made an oral gift of 7 bighas and 17 bisivas of land in favour of Karta Ram son of Telu Ram, a Gaur Brahman of a neighbouring village. The fact of this gift was reported to the Patwari by the Sub-Inspector of consolidation of holdings by means of a Parcha and the Patwari put up a mutation on 27 May 1942. Although the Tehsildar reported that the gift seemed to have been made bona fide out of religious motives and submitted a recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer for the mutation being sanctioned the latter officer thought differently and being of the opinion that the gift was being made in contravention of the provisions of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act suggested rejection of the mutation. The mutation was accordingly rejected.

(2.) On 10 March 1943, the aforesaid Karta Ram brought a suit against Mt. Bakhtawari for a declaration of his title to the land forming the subject-matter of the gift alleging that the gift having been made in his favour for religious and charitable purposes was valid and did not constitute a contravention of the Alienation of Land Act. He further alleged that the mutation had been wrongly refused by the Revenue Officer and that inasmuch as the refusal of the mutation was likely to prejudice him he had sued for a declaration of his title. Mt. Bakhtawari confess, ed judgment and admitted that she had gifted the suit land to the plaintiff for religious and charitable purposes. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim. The Deputy Commissioner has applied under Section 21A, Punjab Alienation of Land Act, for a revision of the decree on the ground that it involves a contra, vention of the provisions of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act.

(3.) By means of my order dated 16 March 1948 I remitted the case to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge for recording evidence of the parties on the question whether the gift had in fact been made for a religious or charitable purpose. The record of evidence has been received and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.