Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It has also been rightly recorded that perusal of document (Ex.P-4) reveals that this mutation was got entered in favour of 'charand gauan' but at the same time, ownership rights were retained by Baru Mal and it is manifest that though he wanted that the suit land could be used for grazing of cows but there is a concurrent finding that if Baru Mal would have actually completely divested himself of the rights over the suit land, then only the suit land could have been deemed to be dedicated, however, it was not done and, thus, it cannot be said that Baru Mal wanted to relinquish or dedicate the proprietary rights in the land or partial rights in the land in favour of plaintiff. The defendants rebutted the evidence produced by plaintiff to prove the divesting of rights of Baru Mal over the suit property, by proving jamabandi entries from the years 1926-27 to 1999-2000. It has also been rightly held that since vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.1986 passed in civil suit No.542 of 1972 filed by Gur Parshad and Mado Ram against the predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.1 to 4 and 7 as well as one Gobind Ram, it has been held that suit land was not proved to have been donated by Baru Mal for the purpose of grazing ground for cattle and same had attained finality, therefore, they are binding on the plaintiff also. In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs. Mahant Harnam Singh C. (dead), M.N.Singh and others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3349, it has been held that judgment passed in a representative suit binds not only the parties in the suit but also those who share the common interest and are interested in trust.