Mohar Singh vs The State

Bedi, J.—The facts giving rise to this revision are as under. One Malla Singh died issueless in September. 1962, leaving behind some immovable property. Virsa Singh and Kharak Singh. claimed his inheritance in equal shares and Mohar Singh also intervened basing his right on a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased. According to this will, one-fourth share of the deceased was to go to Mohar Singh. The patties appeared before the Tehsildar at the time of the mutation which was disputed. Before him the genuineness of the will was challenged and the right of Mohar Snigh was deneid. As the mutation was contested, it was referred to the Roving Revenue Assistant who sanctioned the same on the 30th November, 1963, in favour of Virsa Singh and Kharak Singh and rejected the claim of Mohar Singh holding that the will was not genuine. Mohair Singh was not satisfied and went up in appeal to the Collector which also was dismissed on the 31st January, 1964. The Collector also found the will to be a forged one. Before this mutation was disposed of by the Roving Revenue Assistant, Kharak Singh filed a suit for declaration on the 28th August, 1963, in the Court of Sub-Judge that only he and Virsa Singh were entitled to the property, left behind by the deceased and that the Will was as forged one. That suit was decreed on the 31st August, 1964, by the Sub-Judge who also held that will was not genuine. Hollar ''Singh'' then went up in appeal against the decree but there is nothing on the record to show as to what was the fate of that appeal.

Kharak Singh above mentioned on the 12th October, 1964, filed a complaint against Mohar Singh and the two attesting witnesses to the will stating that the will in question was forged and that it was produced by Mohar Singh to use the same in proceedings before the Revenue Assistant and therefore he should be charged with offences under sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was referred to the police for investigation which also found the will to be a forged one and the investigating other made a report u/s 173 of the Criminal procedure Code to that effect. The learned Magistrate then took cognizance of the complaint. An objection was taken by Mohar Singh that the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the same as the will was produced before, the Tehsildar who was functioning as a Court and who alone could make a complaint against him as required u/s 195 read with section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate, however, did not agree with that contention and rejected the same vide his order. dated, the 7th December, 1965. Mohar Singh went up in revision against that order in the Court of Sessions at Karnal It came up before Shri Sarup Chand Goyal, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnah who upheld the objection of the petitioner and made a recommendation to this Court, that as the complainant had not been filed by the Court as required by law the complainant could not do so himself, and that, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate be quashed.

Arguments of the parties were heard at some length. The facts in this case are not disputes. The Learned Counsel for the State opposed this recommendation on the ground that the Revenue Officers sometimes work as Revenue officials and sometimes as Revenue Court and that when these officials are deciding mutations they work as Revenue Official and not as Revenue Courts. The petitioner''s counsel, however contested that proposition and cited Shri Virindar Kumar Satyawadi Vs. The State of Punjab, , Har Prashad Hans Ram AIR 1966 AH 124, and A Assudomal Ramandas Tando Muhammad Khan v. Jhamandas Hotchand Matli AIR 1640 Sind 100, in support of his contention that the Tehsildar of Roving Revenue Assistant acts as Court when he is deciding the mutations. The proposition laid down in these authorities is of course unquestionable. The Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, was unable to cite any case in his favour, The recommendation made by the Additional Session''s Judge the refore, is accepted and the order of the Magistrate is quashed.