Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In February 1992 the plaintiff, accompanied by her husband, visited Dharamshala to take charge of the suit property. She had never visited Dharamshala from 1969 to 1992, because she ordinarily resided in Bombay and abroad and most of the time she was in London. When she went to Dharamshala in February 1992, it was found that the defendant had built some structures on the suit property after demolishing the old structures, which were known as 'Retreat'. The plaintiff then made enquiries with the defendant and also consulted the revenue record and came to know that on 15.3.1969 mutation had been attested in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari Bhardwaj, the mother of the plaintiff, showing her to be the owner of the suit property on the strength of some affidavit, purporting to have been sworn by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never swore any affidavit in favour of her mother nor did she ever give any authority or right to her mother to deal with her property. Therefore, the aforesaid order of mutation was void ab initio. Otherwise also, the order of mutation was bad in law, because no notice of the proposed order of mutation was ever given to the plaintiff. The order of mutation is alleged to have been procured in her favour, by the mother of the plaintiff, in connivance with the Revenue officials. On the basis of the aforesaid order of mutation dated 15.3.1969, entries appeared in the Jamabandi showing the mother of the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit property.

12. An over all reading of the plaint, especially the relief part, shows that what the plaintiff claims is the possession of the suit land, on the basis of her alleged title. She has specifically stated that she was unaware of the attestation of the mutation till February, 1992 and that no notice of attestation of mutation was ever sent to her. The mutation order, copy of which is on record and which was admitted by the defendant at the time of admission /denial of documents, shows that no notice was sent to the plaintiff. Now, when the plaintiff was not a party to the mutation proceedings and no notice of those proceedings had been issued to her, Article 100 of the Limitation Act, in my considered view, should not be applicable. The suit is to be treated as one for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and for possession and the limitation, per Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, will be twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

3-A. Whether the defendant, being not a citizen of India, was required to obtain permission of the Reserve Bank of India to purchase the suit land and if so, whether it (the defendant) did not obtain the requisite permission? OPP 3-B. Whether the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration? OPD Issue No. 3-A

16. The plaintiff herself examined a Patwari PW-4 Shri Banwari Lal and got proved through him copy of mutation order Ext. PW-4/1. Mutation order was otherwise also admitted by the defendant. It is through this order of mutation that the suit property, purchased by the defendant from the mother of the plaintiff, was mutated in its name. It is mentioned in the mutation order that permission had been granted by the Reserve Bank of India, vide its letter 795/C-432-87/88, dated 7.10.1987, subject to certain conditions, which are mentioned in the order itself. The said conditions are as follows:

18. For the foregoing reasons, the issue has been answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3-B

19. Certain facts, having bearing on the issue, are not in dispute. Sale deeds were executed in the year 1962 in respect of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff, by the previous owners. The same are Exts. PW-2/1 and PW-2/2. On the basis of these two sale deeds mutations were entered and attested in favour of the plaintiff. Copies of the mutation orders are Exts. PW-2/3 and PW-2/4. Thereafter the name of the plaintiff appeared in the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, copy Ext. PW-2/5. She was recorded owner in possession. Thereafter the mutation was attested in favour of the mother of the plaintiff on 15.3.1969, copy whereof produced by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant at the time of admission/ denial of documents, is available on record. A reading of this mutation order shows that there appeared a report in the Rojnamcha that the plaintiff was only a Benamidar in respect of the suit land and that in fact the real owner was her mother Raj Kumari Bhardwaj and so the entries in the revenue papers were required to be corrected. Accordingly mutation was entered and submitted to the Revenue Officer. The Revenue Officer passed the order on 15.3.1969. The order reads that Raj Kumari, the mother of the plaintiff, appeared in the capacity of general attorney of the plaintiff and stated that the sale consideration for the two sales, executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1962, had been paid by her out of her own pocket and that Sushima was only a Benamidar and thus the real ownership vested in her. She produced an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff, in which it had been acknowledged that the price of the land had been paid by the mother of the plaintiff from her own resources and that she (the mother of the plaintiff) was the real owner, while the plaintiff was only a Benamidar. On the basis of the declaration made in the said affidavit, mutation was attested in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. Thereafter the name of the mother of the plaintiff appeared in the Jamabandi showing her to the owner in possession of the suit property. Copy of the Jamabandi, produced by the plaintiff and admitted to be correct by the defendant, though not formally exhibited, is also available on record. Admittedly, the possession of the suit property had been with the mother of the plaintiff from the very beginning, that is to say, from the time of execution of the sale deeds in the year 1962 in favour of the plaintiff. It is in this background that the plea of the defendant that it is a bona fide purchaser for consideration is required to be considered.