Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner herein was married to Shri Sardar Singh. The petitioner is issueless. Her husband Shri Sardar Singh, when this marriage with petitioner was still subsisting, married to one Smt. Gindori, widow of Shri Mange. Shri Mange was real brother of Shri Sardar Singh. Out of this marriage between Shri Sardar Singh and Smt.Gindori, three children were born, viz., Respondents 3 and 4 as well as father of respondents 5 and 6 late Shri Ranbir Singh. Shri Sardar Singh died in the year 1979. He was Bhumidar of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.132 (2-2), 79 (0-6), 6/15 (0-11) and 16 min. (0-9) comprised in Khata No.144 situated at Village Bamnoli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit land'). On the death of Shri Sardar Singh, suit land was mutated in the name of the petitioner and three children of late Sardar Singh, namely, respondents 3, 4 and Shri Ranbir Singh in equal shares vide mutation order dated 19.10.79 passed by Naib Tehsildar (Palam). Proceedings recorded while passing this mutation order are as under:

Order is announced."

(English Translation) Shri Ranbir Singh has since died.

2. The petitioner claims that she has been in cultivatory possession of the suit land since then. However, after a period of 19 years, the respondents 3 to 6 filed appeal against the aforesaid mutation order under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act. The petitioner contested the appeal on various grounds including on the ground that this appeal was clearly time barred. The Appellate Authority, Additional Collector (SW) Delhi/respondent no.2 after hearing the parties passed order dated 27.8.1999. He not only allowed the appeal and condoned the delay in filing the appeal but set-aside mutation order dated 19.10.1979 as well holding that the mutation order was void and illegal. His decision to condone the delay was supported by following reasons:

3. Holding that mutation order was null and void, learned Appellate Authority observed as under:

"I have heard the arguments and gone through the contents of appeal, applications written arguments and citations of law. I find that the appellants are the only legal heir of Sh. Sardar Singh, deceased and are entitled to inherit the property and mutation should have been sanctioned in their favor only. Moreover, on the basis of registered will executed in favor of appellants, the appellants are the only legal heir. Hence by no way, the respondent is entitled for mutation. The mutation sanctioned in favor of respondent is void and does not deserve any sanctity in the eyes of law. As per provisions of Section 48 of the Act, the mutation can not be sanctioned on the basis of succession in presence of Will. As regards the contention of respondent that the appellants did not make objection earlier and therefore they are stopped does not deserve any merit as the appellants were not aware of the Will which is a secret document. Moreover, the appellants were also not aware of the legal position. Merely presence during the proceedings without knowing legal position cannot be treated as admission and the appellants are not bound by the same. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP.No.5057/88 dated 1-11-88, Indian Oil Corporation v/s. Municipality Thanswar held that admission by a citizen in ignorance of his legal rights cannot bind the maker of admission. Consequently the principles of Estoppel does not apply on the appellants. Considering all these facts, I find that the impugned order is void and does not deserve any merit. Consequently, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and sanction mutation in favor of the appellants."

7. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 on the other hand submitted that plea of family settlement was not raised by the petitioner at any stage in the courts below and it was raised for the first time in this petition. He further submitted that respondents 3 to 6 did not know about the registered will and on coming to know of this will they filed appeal against mutation order dated 19.10.1979 and the Additional Collector in these circumstances rightly condoned the delay in filing the appeal, more so when mutation order was against the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act as well as Delhi Land Revenue Act and void ab nitio He further submitted that Section 48 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act gives right to the Bhoomidar to bequeath his property in favor of any person and Section 50 of the Act states that such succession is subject to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, meaning thereby, the will and mandate of Section 48 of the Act will prevail upon the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. It will also be worthy to mention herein that otherwise also, under the provisions of the Act, succession first has to be in favor of male descendants and since respondent nos.3 and 4 are the sons of late Shri Sardar Singh and so also the father of respondents 5 and 6 and as such the mutation has to follow in their names only and not in favor of any other person. He also submitted that the petitioner Smt.Chhoti Devi who was the respondent in the said appeal, took the plea of acquiescence only. In fact there was no other plea except the acquiescence. The Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the law, which was so cited, as is clear from the order also, was pleased to reject the said plea. It has been so held by the Court that Doctrine of Estoppel as has been so propounded is not applicable in view of the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, as held in the order dated 27th August,1999. The Court has rightly considered that since there is a registered will in favor of the appellants and as such they are the only legal heirs. The Court, in fact, has also gone to the extent of saying that under Section 50 of the Act, only the respondents 3 to 6 are entitled to inherit the property and there is no question of inheritance by Smt.Chhoti Devi. He also submitted that mere mutation of property in the name of the petitioner would not confer any title upon her as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram and others (1996) Vol.11 SCC 257 and 1997 Vol.1 SCC 734. At the end he submitted that petitioner being their step mother and Mausi, respondents had no objection if she continues in the suit land during her life time. However, the petitioner who was issueless, wanted to dispose of the property to some third parties with mala fide intentions which was not acceptable to the respondents.