Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Thus, wherever the issue relates to the construction of a document which is germane to the rights of the parties to the lis, it involves a question of law which falls within the scope of a regular second appeal. Therefore, this Court shall proceed to decide the present appeal without framing a substantial question of law.

Issue No.1

19. As regards the first issue, it was the case of the plaintiff that the suit land had been sold by the defendant to Kohar Singh by way of an oral sale dated 25.08.1952. The mutation number is mentioned as '949' in the plaint, whereas the record produced shows that it was '969'. The excerpt (Mark D1) (though not proved in accordance with law) also mentioned about the same and Ex.P3 is the mutation dated 17.09.1952, which was sanctioned qua the same. It was cancelled on 29.09.1952 and document dated 7 of 12 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040765 RSA-527-1990 -8- 22.12.1966 (Ex.D1) shows that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade held that the said mutation had not been attested. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time oral sale was permissible, for, the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were enforced in Punjab w.e.f. 01.04.1955 vide notification dated 26.03.1955. However, in the considered opinion of this Court and as rightly held by the trial Court, there was no oral or documentary evidence to prove the factum of oral sale. The original mutation was not produced. Only the Parat Patwar was produced which could not have been read into evidence in the absence of Parat Sarkar, which in fact is the original mutation. Parat Patwar is only meant for the record of Halqa Patwari and the subsequent entries in the revenue record are only taken from the Parat Sarkar. It was only on this account that no subsequent entry of this mutation was carried out in the subsequent revenue record. It appears that since Kohar Singh was the manager of the land Ch. Kesho Dass, who was a big land owner, he managed an entry in his favour, which, upon having been revealed, was corrected. This apart, absolutely no oral evidence to prove the factum of the oral sale was produced barring the bald statement of the plaintiff. Even the excerpt (Ex.P1) was silent about the sanctioning of the mutation on the basis of the oral sale. The Naib Sadar Kanungo PW1 (Desh Raj) also could not prove the case of the plaintiff. It has to be borne in mind that when it was asserted that such a huge chunk of a land was alienated by way of an oral sale, which, on the face of it, seems to be little unbelievable, heavy onus lied on the plaintiff to prove the same. No evidence was led to prove the payment of Rs.35000/- as well. It is again to be borne in mind that at the relevant time, Rs.35000/- was an enormous amount and somebody would not give or take such a huge sum without execution of any document whatsoever. These facts are being gone into in 8 of 12 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040765 RSA-527-1990 -9- second appeal because the misreading of evidence and reversal of a judgment on that basis is also a question of law.