Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vinaben Daughter Of Kantibhai Patel And ... vs Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue ... on 27 April, 2017

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

                    C/SCA/4741/2017                                          ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 4741 of 2017
                                           With 
                 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4743 of 2017
         =========================================================

VINABEN DAUGHTER OF KANTIBHAI PATEL AND WIFE OF KANTILAL  NATHUBHAI PATEL  &  2....Petitioner(s) Versus SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPARTMENT  & 

8....Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance: (SCA No. 4741 of 2017) MR SHALIN N MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR VIMAL A  PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ­ 3 MR JK SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 4 MAYANK K TRIVEDI, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 7 MR KK TRIVEDI, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 7 Appearance: (SCA No. 4743 of 2017) MR SHALIN N MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR VIMAL A  PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ­ 3 MS AMITA SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­  4 MAYANK K TRIVEDI, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 7 MR KK TRIVEDI, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 7 ========================================================= CORAM:  HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI    Date : 27/04/2017   ORAL COMMON ORDER Pursuant   to   the   order   dated   17.03.2017,   learned  advocate for the petitioners has placed the necessary  documents   along   with   the   Draft   Amendment,   which   has  Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER also been carried out.

2. Heard   Mr.   Shalin   N.   Mehta,   learned   Senior  Advocate with Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned advocate  for the petitioners.

3. It is submitted that the lands in question were  originally   in   the   name   of   Manorbhai   Dahyabhai,   who  died on 25.05.1938. Entry No. 213  was mutated in the  revenue   record   on   05.07.1938   recording   the   name   of  sole heir Gomatben Manorbhai, who was his daughter. On  03.03.1964, Gomatben executed a Will bequeathing the  lands in question to her daughter Jaysukhben Kalidas.  On 24.05.1969, Gomatben Manorbhai passed away.  As per  the   Will,   Entry   No.   656   was   mutated   in   the   revenue  record on 15.07.1969 recording the name of Jaysukhben  Kalidas   in   respect   of   the   lands   in   question   on   the  basis   of   the   Will.   On   18.02.2011   Jaysukhben   Kalidas  executed a Will bequeathing the lands in question to  respondents Nos. 7   and 8   (Harshal Patel and Kavita  Patel), that is, her son and daughter respectively.

4. It is further submitted that after the Will was  Page 2 of 14 HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER made   by   Jaysukhben   on   18.02.2011,   but   before   her  death,   a   Family   Arrangement   ('Samayekpanano   Karar')  took place between Jaysukhben and other members of the  family. In spite of Entry No. 2561 was mutated in the  revenue record on 06.01.2014, in respect of the Family  Arrangement, to which even Jaysukhben was also party.  As per the said mutation entry, the petitioners were  shown as co­sharers in the property in question along  with Jaysukhben.

5. It   is   further   contended   by   learned   Senior  Advocate   that   on   03.03.2015   Jaysukhben   allegedly  executed a Codicil whereby respondent No. 7 was made  the   sole   beneficiary   of   the   lands   which   were   the  subject matter of the Family Arrangement. Jaysukhben  died   on   03.05.2015,   that   is,   after   the   Family  Arrangement  and   the   entry   with   regard   to   the  Family  Arrangement which was certified. On 02.06.2015, Entry  No. 2633 was mutated in the revenue record, recording  the names of all the heirs in respect of the lands,  including the petitioners.

6. On 03.07.2015 Entry No. 2641 was mutated in the  Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER revenue record as per the Will and Codicil executed by  Jaysukhben   recording   respondent   No.   7   as   the   sole  beneficiary.     Two   disputed   cases   were,   therefore,  filed.   Case   No.   25   of   2015   was   filed   by   the  petitioners   challenging   Entry   No.   2641   of   the   Will,  whereas, Case No. 26 of 2015 was filed by respondent  No.   7   challenging   Entry   No.   2633,   which   is   the  heirship   entry   mutated   pursuant   to   the   death   of  Jaysukhben recording the names of the petitioners as  her heirs. 

7. On 10.11.2015, the Mamlatdar, by a common order  accepted the case of the petitioners and rejected the  case   of   respondent   No.   7.     Two   appeals   were,  therefore, filed by respondent No. 7 before the Deputy  Collector being Appeal No. 415 of 2015 and Appeal No.  414 of 2015. Both these appeals came to be dismissed  on 20.05.2016 by the Deputy Collector. Respondent No.  7, therefore, carried the same in revision before the  Collector by preferring Revision Application No. 290  of 2016 and Revision Application No. 291 of 2016. Both  these   revision   applications   were   allowed   by   order  dated 22.11.2016.

Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER

8. It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the  petitioners   that   being   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated  22.11.2016   passed   by   the   Collector,   the   petitioners  preferred   revision   a   application   before   the   Special  Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (SSRD), which  was admitted. Along with the revision application, the  petitioners   have   preferred   an   application   for   the  grant  of  interim   relief,   which   has   been   rejected   by  the   impugned   order   dated   07.02.2017.   Aggrieved  thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned  Senior   Advocate   for   the   petitioners   that   before   the  Will executed by Jaysukhben could come into operation  upon her death, and during the lifetime of Jaysukhben,  Family Arrangement had taken place to which Jaysukhben  was also party. The entry with respect to the Family  Arrangement mutated in the revenue record has not been  challenged so far. Hence, the said entry has attained  finality. Submissions in this regard were advanced by  the   learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   before   the  SSRD during the hearing of the application for interim  Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER stay.   However,   these   submissions   have   not   been  considered or dealt with at all. Hence, the order of  the   SSRD,   though   it   may   be   reasoned   order   on   other  counts,   cannot  be  considered   to   be   a  reasoned   order  insofar as this aspect is concerned.

10. It   is   further   submitted   that   it   is   a   settled  position of law that if the submissions of the parties  are not dealt with, it amounts to infringement of the  principles of natural justice. Hence, in this view of  the   matter   and   in   view   of   the   facts   that   the  submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners have  not been examined in the impugned order passed by the  SSRD, the said order is bad on the ground of violation  of the principles of natural justice.

11. It   is   submitted   that   the   SSRD   has   taken   into  consideration   the   Compromise   Decree   that   has   been  challenged by the petitioners before the Civil Court.  However,   the   Will   and   the   Codicil   have   not   been  mentioned, even though respondent No. 7 claims a right  on the basis of the Will and the Codicil. Hence, there  was no valid reason for the SSRD to reject the stay  Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER application of the petitioners.

12. That   the   SSRD   has   failed   to   consider   that   the  Family Arrangement dated 12.12.2013 is later than the  Compromise Decree and the Will. The Family Arrangement  shows the intention of the parties as well as that of  Jaysukhben,  and   respondent  No.   7,   both  of  whom   were  beneficiaries of the same. This Family Arrangement was  not waived during her lifetime.  It is not the case of  respondent   No.   7   that   the   Family   Arrangement   is   a  fraudulent   one.   The   rights   flowing   from   the   said  Family   Arrangement   have   not   been   considered   by   the  SSRD.

13. It   is   further   submitted   that   in   law   the   Will  would operate only upon the death of the Testator. The  Family   Arrangement   was   entered   into   by   Jaysukhben  during her lifetime, with full knowledge that she had  made a Will earlier. The intention on the part of the  Testator   is   to   be   seen,   which   was   to   make   the  petitioners   co­sharers   in   the   property   in   question.  The   clear   intention   expressed   in   the   Family  Arrangement   would   operate   even   after   the   death   of  Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER Jaysukhben.   During   her   lifetime   Jaysukhben   had   not  revoked the Family Arrangement and it has been signed  by   all   concerned,   including   herself.   The   logical  consequence     therefore,   would   be   that   the   Family  Arrangement   would   bind   not   only   Jaysukhben,   but   all  the concerned parties including respondent No. 7. 

14. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   conduct   of  respondent   No.   7   may   be   considered   by   the   Court.  Respondent No. 7 has sold the property in question on  01.02.2017,   whereas   the   SSRD   reserved   the   order   on  30.01.2017.   The   order   was   pronounced   on   07.02.2017.  But   even   before   the   said   order   was   pronounced,   and  after it was reserved, respondent No. 7 has, in a game  of   unfair   upmanship,   sold   the   property   so   that   the  petitioners   would   be   deprived   of   their   rights.   This  mischief played by respondent No. 7 may be taken into  consideration by this Court.

15. Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent  No.   7   (Caveator)   has   submitted   that   the   petitioners  have   filed   Civil   Suits   wherein   they   have   challenged  the Compromise Decree to which they are parties. They  Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER have   also   challenged   the   Will   which   is   executed   by  respondent No. 7. It is submitted that the application  at Exhibit­5  for the grant of temporary injunction is  pending  and no order has been passed till date. 15.1. It is further submitted by learned advocate  for respondent No. 7 that the Will would operate on  the   death   of   the   Testator.   The   mutation   entry   with  regard to the Family Arrangement would not confer any  right to the petitioners.

15.1.1. In   support   of   the   above   submissions,  reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex  Court in the case of  H. Lakshmaiah Reddy and Others   v. L. Venkatesh Reddy  reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784,  especially paragraph 7, which is reproduced below :­ "7.   We   have   considered   the   rival  contentions.   There   is   no   dispute   in   the  factual   matrix.   Guramma   was   the   first   wife   of the first defendant and the plaintiff was   their   only   son   and   suit   property   was  purchased by Guramma by Ext. P­1 sale deed  dated   14.11.1959   and   the   property   stood   in   her   name   in   revenue   record.   The   plaintiff  was born on 01.10.1965  and Guramma  died on  20.01.1966. As per Section 15 of the Hindu  Succession Act, the husband and the son of  deceased Guramma, namely the first defendant  Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER and   the   plaintiff,   being   Class­I   heirs  succeeded to the suit property. As per Ext.  P­8, Katha  of suit property was  changed to  the name of the plaintiff from his mother on   09.01.1990 and the endorsement therein made  by   the   Tahsildar   reveals   that   the   first  defendant accepted the mutation of entry in  the name of the plaintiff, being their only  son   and   on   the   basis   of   the   said  declaration,   the   mutation   was   effected   and  it was not challenged. Ext. D­10 is the RTC  extract   covering   the   period   from   1989   to  1992   and   the   plaintiff   was   shown   as   the  owner of the suit property."

15.2. The   next   decision   relied   upon   by   learned  advocate for respondent No. 7 is in the case of Suraj   Bhan and Others v. Financial Commissioner and Others  reported in (2007) SCC 186, wherein, it has been held  as below : ­ "8. So far as mutation is concerned, it is  clear that entry has been made and mutation  has been effected in revenue records by the  Tahsildar   on   the   basis   of   an   application  made by respondent No. 5 herein and his name   has been entered in record­of­rights on the  basis of the will said to have been executed   by Ratni Devi. In our opinion, therefore, it   cannot be said that by entering the name of  respondent   No.   5   in   revenue   records,   any  illegality   had   been   committed   by   the  Tahsildar.   It   is   true   that   no   notice   was  issued   to   the   appellants   but   the   Tahsildar   had   taken   the   action   on   the   basis   of   will  said to have been executed by deceased Ratni   Devi in favour of respondent No. 5. The said   order has been confirmed by the Collector as   also by the Financial Commissioner. When the   grievance   was   made   against   the   said   action   by   filing   a   writ   petition,   the   High   Court  Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER also confirmed all the orders passed by the  Revenue Authorities under the Act. We see no   infirmity so far as that part of the order  is concerned."

15.3. Lastly, learned advocate for respondent No.  7 has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in  the   case   of  Durga   Das   v.   Collector   and   Others   reported in  (1996) 5 SCC 618, on the point that the  title   of   the   property   is   not   governed   by   mutation  entries.

16. Mr.   J.K.   Shah,   learned   Assistant   Government  Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has supported the  order of the SSRD and submitted that the reasons given  by the SSRD for the refusal of the interim stay are  just and proper.

17. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective  parties, this Court may clarify at the first instance  that the scope and ambit of the petitions is confined  only to the refusal of the interim order by the SSRD  and,   therefore,   the   merits   of   the   matter   are   not  required to be touched as the revision application is  pending.  Insofar  as   the   grant   of   interim   relief   is  Page 11 of 14 HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER concerned, three factors that are required to be only  considered are, the existence of a  prima facie  case,  balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that  would occur if an interim order is not granted.

18. Though it has been recorded in the order of the  SSRD that no prima facie case exists in favour of the  petitioners,   no   reasons   in   support   of   such  observations have been given. Why   there is no  prima  facie  case in favour of the petitioners has not been  disclosed.   This   aspect   assumes   relevance   in   view   of  the submissions advanced by the petitioners regarding  the Family Arrangement, which had also been advanced  before the SSRD and do not appear to have been dealt  with.  Hence,   the   bold   statement   that   no  prima  facie  case   exists   in   favour   of   the   petitioners,     without  considering   the   submissions   advanced   by   them,   would  prima facie not be a proper ground for the refusal of  the stay order.

19. Insofar  as   the   other   grounds   for   rejection   the  application are concerned, they are to the effect that  the   SSRD   has   observed   that   the   application   of   the  Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER petitioners is barred by res­judicata. The Court fails  to   understand   how  res­judicata  would   operate   to   an  application   for   grant   of   interim   relief   pending   the  final   decision   of   the   revision   application   filed   by  the   petitioners.   Moreover,   the   reasons   mentioned   by  the SSRD for the refusal of the interim relief touch  upon   the   merits   of   the   case,   which   would   adversely  affect the final decision of the revision application.

20. Taking   into   consideration   the   totality   of   the  facts   of   the   case,   the   issues   arising   in   the  petitions,   require   deeper   consideration.   In     the  tentative view of the Court, the SSRD ought to have  granted an interim stay to the petitioners during the  pendency of the revision application.  Learned Senior  Advocate for the petitioners has, therefore, succeeded  in making out a prima facie case for the admission of  the petitions and grant of interim relief.

Hence, the following order is passed ; Issue Rule returnable on 21.08.2017. Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017 C/SCA/4741/2017 ORDER There   shall   be   interim   relief   in   terms   of  paragraph   24(B)   till   the   final   decision   of   the  petitions.

It   is   clarified   that   any   observations   made   in  this   order   shall   not   be   taken   as   an   expression   of  final opinion on the merits of the case.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)  /phalguni/ Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Mon Aug 14 13:40:13 IST 2017