Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. Jayalakshmi Ammal vs R. Gopala Pathar on 9 September, 1994
14. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon N. Jayalakshmi Ammal and Ors. v. R. Gopala Pather and Anr., J.T. 1994(6) S.C. 19. This judgment is also not helpful in this case. As I have already stated above that the plaintiffs are to establish that Harbans Singh had either died somewhere before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act or after the death of Gurbachan Kaur. On both these scores they have failed.
Balwant Singh & Anr. Etc vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. &Ors on 7 July, 1997
In support of his contention he relies upon Balwant Singh and Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., 1997(2) P.L.J. 132, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that mutation entries do not covey or extinguish any title. These entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, there is no dispute. But the point for adjudication in the present case is about the succession of Harbans Singh. Plaintiff No. 1 can only succeed if he establishes that Harbans Singh pre-deceased his sister Gurbachan Kaur. The plaintiffs' own case is that Harbans Singh was not heard after the partition of the country. Meaning thereby inference of death of Harbans Singh has to be drawn that he died somewhere in the year 1977. Indefinite and continuous inference cannot be drawn in favour of the plaintiffs that Harbans Singh will be presumed to be alive because defendant No. 1 has not come with any specific evidence about the actual time of death. Moment it is ruled out that Harbans Singh had not died prior to enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, then the evidence on the record is enough to conclude that Harbans Singh was not heard for the last seven years prior to the filing of the application on 10.3.1983 before the revenue authorities and prior to 24.8.1983 before the sanctioning of the mutation of Harbans Singh in favour of Makhan Singh, Achhar Singh and Smt. Gurbachan Kaur. Smt. Gurbachan Kaur will inherit as her absolute property. She can alienate the same which she did by executing power of attorney in favour of her brother Achhar Singh, who further sold the property through registered sale deeds dated 14.9.1987 and 15.9.1987 in favour of his son Sucha Singh; defendant No. 2. These sale deeds have been proved for consideration and due execution is also proved. In this case the question of estoppel or mutation does not arise. It is a basic law that succession cannot remain in abeyance. Moment the death of Harbans Singh is presumed and inferred, his succession has to go to his legal heirs according to law and according to shares specified in the Hindu Succession Act. In this manner, plaintiff No. 1 will only get l/3rd share in the property of Harbans Singh. Rather there is an interesting statement of plaintiff No. 1 himself when he appeared as his own witness and stated in his cross-examination that he is not disputing the succession of Harbans Singh rather he is disputing the estate of Smt. Gurbachan Kaur. Meaning thereby that plaintiff Makhan Singh himself admits that Gurbachan Kaur has rightly become the owner of the property being one of the legal heirs of Harbans Singh. His grouse is why Gurbachan Kaur has sold the property to the son of Achhar Singh, defendant No. 1. In this manner, Makhan Singh, plaintiff No. 1, virtually has no locus standi to file the suit when he is contesting the estate held by Gurbachan Kaur. With the dealt of Gurbachan Kaur her estate, if any left, shall devolve upon her sons, daughters and husband according to law and not upon the plaintiffs Makhan Singh or his son Joginder Singh.
Section 108 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
K.V. Swamynathan And Ors vs E.V. Padmanabhan And Ors on 21 December, 1990
"16. This issue has also been hotly contested by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that from perusal of revenue record, it is proved that plaintiff Makhan Singh and Achhar Singh defendant are in possession of the land owned by Harbans Singh. It is further contended that defendant No. 5 Amrik Singh has filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that Amrik Singh defendant No. 5 is natural heir of Gurbachan Kaur and in case the sale deed executed by Gurbachan Kaur is held to be invalid in that case he is entitled to inherit the land owned by Gurbachan Kaur. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken me to jamabandi Ex. P-6 and has contended that Makhan Singh and Achhar Singh are in possession of whole of the land. It is further contended that in column No. 9 in Ex. P-6 it has been mentioned that Achhar Singh is in possession of land as owner "Bawaja Tasabar Malkeat". This jamabandi is for the year 1970-71. It has been contended that plaintiff Makhan Singh had been in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share and Harbans Singh never came in possession of the property.
1