Gurmel Singh vs Prem Kaur

H.R. Sodhi, J.—This second appeal raises a pure question of fact in as much as the only point urged before me is that the Plaintiffs are not proved to be daughters of Mst. Uttami. It is, however, submitted that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below stand vitiated because of a wrong approach by raising a presumption about relationship on the basis of entries in the revenue records. Facts as are necessary for decision of the appeal may be stated in a narrow compass.

Prem Kaur and Waryam Kaur Plaintiffs instituted the present suit against Bhajan Singh and his sons Gurmel Singh and Gurdial Singh tor possession of 10 Bighas 9 Biswas of land situate in village Sahzad-pur, district Patiala. It was pleaded that the suit land formed part of the estate of their mother Uttami deceased and they as her heirs were entitled to possession thereof, of which they had been forcibly deprived by the Defendants some 6-7 years before the institution of the suit. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that they are daughters of Uttami out of the loins of Chhotu. Gurmel Singh Defendant-Appellant only contested the suit though the other Defendants also filed written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether Mst. Uttami was the owner of the land in suit ?

Whether the Plaintiffs are the daughters of Mst. Uttami, and as such her heirs ?

3 Whether the joinder of Bhajan Singh and Gurdial Singh as Defendants is proper ? If not to what effect ?

Whether Gurmel Singh Defendant is adopted son of Pam Singh son of Sahela Singh ?

Whether Ram Singh and after his death Gurmel Singh entered into the possession of the suit land as owners after the death of Bakhshish Singh son of Chhotu ?

If issue No 5 is not proved, whether Ram Singh and Gurmel Singh Defendant acquired ownership of the land in suit by adverse possession ?

Whether Ram Singh consented to the succession of the suit property by Mst. Uttami, on the death of Bakhshish Singh and thereafter did not object to the same and as such Gurmel Singh is estopped from chellenging the title of Mst. Uttami to the suit land ?

Relief.

The suit was decreed by the trial Court in view of its findings on issues Nos. 1, 2, 3. 5 and 6 which were all decided in favour of the plaintitfs. Issue No. 4 alone was decided in favour of the Defendant Appellant. In appeal by the Defendant Appellant, before the District Judge, Patiala, the only attack was against the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2, but it having been found to be without substance, the appeal was rejected. Hence the present second appeal.

Mr. J.N. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has strenuously urged that finding on issue No. 2 relating to the alleged relationship of the Plaintiffs with Uttami deceased is vitiated because of an erroenous approach by wrongly raising a presumption in favour of the Plaintiffs on account of some entries in the revenue records. Of the death of Uttami, mutation of inheritance Exhibit P. 2 was sanctioned on 19th January. 1963. in favour of the plaintitfs, who were described as her daughters. At the time of attestation of the mutation, Bhagwan Singh, Lambardar of the village, is alleged to have verified before the Assistant Collector I Ind Grade that Waryam Kaur and Prem Kaur, now Plaintiffs, were daughters of Uttami mother of Bakhshish Singh and widow of Chhotu. It may be mentioned here that Bakhish Singh was son of Uttami and had pre-decased her. When Bakhshish Singh died, Uttami succeeded to his estate vide Exhibit P. 1 dated 30th August, 1962, her husband Chhotu having already died. Entries in the mutation Exhibit P. 2 regarding devolution of inheritance in favour of the Plaintiffs, on the death of Uttami, were later incorporated in the Jamabandi Exhibit P 4 and there too the Plaintiffs were shown as her daughters holding the estate as owners. In view of the entries in the Jamabandi a presumption was raised by the Courts below u/s 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act), and it was found that the Defendants had not been able to rebut that presumption. The onus, but for the presumption ,so raised, would, of course, have been ordinarily on the Plaintiffs who alleged that they were daughters of Uttami. The District Judge held that as long as entries in the revenue records were not proved to be false, the same must be presumed to be correct and acted upon The argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that it is only with regard to entries showing devolution of any right interest or liability that a presumption of truth attaches thereto and not in regard to relationship of the parties as referred to in the record-of rights. The submission indeed is that a statutory presumption of relationship arises only with respect to entries in pedigree tables, but not when a certain relationship is mentioned in the Jamabandis. Section 31 of the Act states which documents will be included in the record-of rights and pedegree table is one of them. Jamabandi also fall in the record-of-rights and are presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. In my opinion, the argument of the learned Counsel is fallacious and based on misapprehension of the subject of Section 44 of the Act Before a mutation is attested, a public inquiry, according to the procedure prescribed by law, has to be made, and it has to be ascertained whether any transfer of interest in land has taken place by gift, sale, mortgage or otherwise, and who are parties to a transaction. It is inherently implied in such an inquiry that a revenue officer who is called upon to do so must, in the discharge of his public duties, satisfy himself about the identity of the parties affected by the mutation. The identity is indeed an essential part of the inquiry. Mutations are entered to keep the revenue records up-todate and the revenue officers have to take notice of all the changes taking place about the interest in land. An appeal is provided u/s 13 of the Act against an order of a revenue officer sanctioning or refusing to sanction a mutation. There is also a further remedy by way of revision of the orders of revenue officers by the Financial Commissioner u/s 16. Again, when entries in the mutations are transferred in Jamabandis, revenue officers concerned have to make enquiries from the right holders to ascertain whether any changes have occurred which have not been brought on the record. The parties are informed about the existing entries and then lists are prepared indicating changes proposed to be entered in the Jamabandis. Even if at the time of attestation of a mutation certain parties did not appear or had not been contacted, but were interested in the devolution of interest in land, they have an opportunity to represent their case when an enquiry for the preparation of Jamabandis is made on the spot. All these enquiries are made on the spot and officials are presumed to have done their acts in accordanc with law. There is a well known maxim, omnia proesumuntur rite esse acta.

The word ''entry'' as appearing in Section 44 is not limited to the fact of devolution of a right, interest or liability only, but also covers in its ambit the other facts mentioned in the record-of-rights which will include the relationship of parties as stated in such records. The presumption about the devolution or transfer of an interest in land will be meaningless without reference to the parties in whose favour such devolution of the transfer has taken place. I am, therefore, of the view that it must be presumed u/s 44 that a person shown in the record-of-rights as having a particular relationship with another person interested in the estate does possess that relationship unless contrary is proved. The Courts below committed no illegality in raising the presumption that the Plaintiffs were daughters of Uttami as shown in the revenue records and it was for the Defendants to rebut that presumption which they failed to do.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal which stands dismissed with no order as to costs.