Rajinder Singh vs Mewa Singh

S.C. Malte, J.—The original plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The appellantplaintiff filed a suit for getting a declaration that mutation No. 95 dated 10.8.1968 was illegal and ultra vires to the extent that the Tatima of the land purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant should be corrected to show that the defendant purchased the portion mark ''L'' in the site plan attached to the plaint. With respect I would say that the plaint in this case is very poorly drafted, and it requires a lot of exercise to spell out the case which the plaintiff wanted to put forth. By liberal construction to the pleadings, it can be said that the contention of the plaintiff was that revenue record which he calls ''Tatima'' was wrongly prepared and consequently the mutation entry No. 95 was "illegal and ultra vires". He further wants to say that he should be shown as owner of the piece of land as shown at point ''N'' in the plan attached with the plaint.

The claim made by the plaintiff came to be disputed by the defendant by filing the written statement. He contended that the portion mark ''N'' did not belong to the plaintiff.

Thus, the simple question raised in this matter pertains to the identity of the land thus purchased by the respective parties. The trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff. His observations indicate that he took into consideration the solitary circumstance namely, mention of direction towards Gopalpur in the description of the land in the sale deed in favour of the defendant as enough to fix the identity of the property. The appellate Court disagreed with that and dismissed the suit.

The counsel for the appellant brought to my attention Exhibits P1 and P2 which are the sale deeds of the respective parties. Ex. P1 dated 2.6.1967 is the sale deed in the favour of the plaintiff Sewa Singh. Ex. P2 dated 1.6.1967 is the sale deed in favour of defendant Mewa Singh. In both these sale deeds Khasra No. 115(182) is mentioned as land out of which, a piece of land was carved out and sold to these parties. The only question, therefore, is which of the pieces out of these two pieces thus sold belongs to whom. The piece of land thus sold to each of the parties is almost identical in size i.e. about 8 ''Biswas''. The plaintiff claims that the piece of land sold to him is situated to the southern portion of Khasra No. 115; and the land sold to defendant was situated to the northern end of Khasra No. 115. The sale deeds Ex. P1 and P2 which pertain to the sale of the respective land is another instance of poor drafting. In Ex. P1 boundaries of the land thus sold are not at all indicated. Therefore, it does not render any help to fix the identity precisely with reference to its location. Similar is the case with respect to Ex. P2. However, the trial Court found that in Ex. P2, while describing the land sold to the defendant, it is mentioned that the sold land is towards the boundary of village of Gopalpur. The evidence on record shows that Gopalpur is situated towards the north of Khasra No. 115. But in my opinion, mere existence of the boundary of a village somewhere towards the north of the land, by itself, would not be enough to conclude the controversy. It may be mentioned that to the north of Khasra No. 115 there is Khasra No. 116. It is, therefore, obvious that the existence of village Gopalpur is not enough to fix the boundary.

The evidence shows that since the date of sale deed on 1.6.1967, the parties claim to be in possession of their respective pieces of land. In other words at that time there was no mistake or dispute in respect of the occupation of correct pieces of land by the respective purchasers. The pieces of land thus obtained in possession by these respective parties remained with them till the date of filing the suit on 9.2.1975. That is so obvious because in the plaint there is no prayer for possession. If that be the position, it would have been quite easy for the plaintiff to get appointment of a Commissioner in the trial Court to show the location of these pieces of land in occupation of the respective parties. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was not advised to adopt that method to have the spot inspection through Commissioner.

The plaintiff now claims that the Revenue Officer prepared a wrong ''Tatima'' and on the basis of that a wrong mutation entry No. 95 dated 10.8.1968 was sanctioned. On consulting the dictionary "Urdu Hindi Shabadkosh" by Mohammad Mustfa Khan, published by the U.P. Government, 1959 Edition, I find that the term ''Tatima'' means the appendix or supplement or last portion attached to a book or any other thing. In view of that it was not possible to ascertain precisely what the plaintiff''s contention was in respect of recording a wrong ''Tatima'' or a supplementary statement recorded by a Revenue Officer. A certified copy of the mutation entry No. 95 is found at Ex. P6. On it there is one figure drawn to show the respective pieces of land. The piece of land bearing Khasra No. 115/1 is shown to the northeast corner of the large piece of Khasra No. 115. The piece of land bearing Khasra No. 115/2 is shown along the north boundary out of the large piece of land of Khasra No. 115. There is a column showing the boundaries to describe these respective small pieces of land thus sold to the parties. On verifying the boundaries as given in the mutation Ex. P6, I find that these pieces of land were correctly described by mentioning the boundaries appearing on the sides of these respective lands. The plaintiff has not clearly spelt out the case to show that the boundaries mentioned in the mutation Ex. P6 were wrongly mentioned; or names of the correct vendees were not shown as against the correct subdivision of the land. In respect of mutation entry No. 95, DW4 Lachhman Singh, Revenue Patwari was examined. He deposes that the said mutation entry was effected by the then Patwari Surain Dass, and at that time he had prepared the ''Tatima'' at the spot. He further testifies that the vendors and the vendees (plaintiff and defendant) were then present. His crossexamination indicates that by recollection he was not able to tell the location of these respective lands. But for that reason alone his testimony need not be brushed aside. On total reading of his testimony, it was not possible to say that a mistake was committed while effecting the said mutation entry coupled with ''Tatima'' at the spot.

The parties have led evidence in support of the respective sale deeds and the possession over the respective pieces of land. As such the execution of the said deed and the fact of possession on the basis of that, is not in dispute. The counsel had not brought to my attention the testimony of any of those witnesses to spell out his case.

Thus, I find that the lower appellate Court has arrived at the correct conclusion. The appeal is dismissed with costs.