Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

State Of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Rakha & Ors

State Of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Rakha & Ors

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 350 Of 1981 | 06-02-1997

K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. Application for substitution and appointment of legal guardian is ordered.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, made on 7.5.1980 in RSA No. 802 of 1980 confirming the judgment of the District Court dated 7.11.1979.

3. The admitted position is that one Gobind Mal, father of the respondents, had possessory mortgage from the holders of the suit land in the year 1887-88. When the land was declared as an evacuee property under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, the Union of India claimed the land belonged to them. The respondents filed a civil suit for the declaration that after the expiry of the period of 60 years from the date of the mortgage, they have become absolute owners as the mortgage became irredeemable and as a consequence they are the owners of the property. Though the trial Court has dismissed the suit, on appeal, it was reversed and decree was granted. The High Court in the second appeal confirmed it by dismissing it in limine. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. From the evidence on record, it is seen that mutation entries have been effected to show that the respondents were in possession of the property as mortgagees through the tenants. That evidence was corroborated by DW 2, Kanungo and the mutation order DW 2/1. The District Court also relied upon jamabandi for the year 1887-88. Under those circumstances, the mutation in regard to year 1896-97 is only referable to the earlier mortgage of 1886-87. As a consequence, by the time the Act has come into force, the land became irredeemable by the original mortgagor. Resultantly they had lost title to the hypotheca. The title to the land was rightly declared to belong to the respondents and it cannot be declared to be evacuee property nor the Government can claim interest in the land as evacuee property. The decree granted by the District Judge, therefore, is according to law and needs no interference.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

6. Appeal dismissed.

Advocate List
  • FOR
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SAGHIR AHMAD
Eq Citations
  • AIR 1997 SC 2151
  • (1997) 10 SCC 172
  • 1998 (3) RCR (CIVIL) 124
  • JT 1997 (2) SC 577
  • 1997 (2) SCALE 180
  • LQ/SC/1997/212
Head Note

— Evacuee property — Absolute ownership of mortgagee — Possession of mortgagee — Mutation entries — Evidence — Effect of — Held, mutation entries have been effected to show that respondents were in possession of property as mortgagees through tenants — Evidence corroborated by DW 2 Kanungo and mutation order DW 21 — District Court also relied upon jamabandi for year 1887-88 — Under those circumstances, mutation in regard to year 1896-97 is only referable to earlier mortgage of 1886-87 — As a consequence, by time Act came into force, land became irredeemable by original mortgagor — Resultantly, they had lost title to hypotheca — Title to land was rightly declared to belong to respondents and it cannot be declared to be evacuee property nor Government can claim interest in land as evacuee property — Decree granted by District Judge therefore is according to law and needs no interference (Paras 3 and 4)