[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardyal Singh vs Gurcharan Kaur on 8 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M)
Shri Hardayal Singh (deceased) thr LRs . . . . Appellant
V/s
Gurcharan Kaur(deceased) thr Lrs . . . . Respondent
Reserved on: December 12, 2025
Pronounced on: January 08, 2026
Pronounced Full/Partly : Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Ms. Shru Jain Goyal and
Ms. Sheena Dahiya and Ms. Komal Klana, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S.S. Salar and Mr. Sidharth Grover, Advocates
for the respondent.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Introductory Facts :The present regular second appeal has been
preferred by the defendant against the concurrent findings recorded by the
Courts below.
2. The suit for possession based on inheritance, rela ng to the
property in dispute, was ins tuted by the plain ff - Smt. Gurcharan Kaur
(now represented through her legal representa ves). The suit was decreed by
the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992, and the
appeal filed by the defendant-appellant Hardayal Singh (now represented
through his legal representa ves) was dismissed by the learned First Appel-
late Court on 27.07.1996.
1 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the par es shall be re-
ferred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The trial Court record has
been requisi oned and perused.
4.1 Plain ff's Case : The subject ma6er of dispute is land measuring
185 kanals 9 marlas, situated in village Shahnal, Tehsil Ra a, District
Fatehabad, as detailed in head-note of the plaint. The land was originally
owned by Ishar Singh son of Assa Singh, who was married to Smt. Bhagwan
Kaur. The plain ff, i.e. Gurcharan Kaur is the admi6ed daughter of Ishar Singh
and Smt. Bhagwan Kaur and, according to her, she is the sole issue from the
said wedlock.
4.2 Ishar Singh had a brother, namely Gulab Singh, who was married
to Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, from whom a son, Gamdur Singh, was born. Gulab
Singh expired in the year 1944. According to the plain ff, a=er the death of
Gulab Singh, his widow Smt. Bhagwant Kaur neither contracted any marriage
nor performed any karewa marriage with Ishar Singh. Despite this, she gave
birth to a son in the year 1947, namely Hardayal Singh - defendant No.1. It is
the specific case of the plain ff that Ishar Singh was not the biological father
of defendant No.1 and that merely to preserve the dignity and honour of the
family, Ishar Singh allowed his name to be recorded as the father of the de-
fendant, though no marital or legal rela onship existed between him and
Smt. Bhagwant Kaur.
4.3 Ishar Singh expired on 10.11.1955, leaving behind various par-
cels of land situated in village Shahnal. A=er his death, Muta on of Inherit-
ance No.183 was sanc oned on 07.07.1960 exclusively in favour of defendant
No.1. The plain ff alleges that the said muta on was got sanc oned by the
defendant fraudulently and in connivance with the revenue staff, without any
no ce, knowledge or consent of either Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, the widow of Is-
har Singh, or the plain ff. The muta on is, therefore, pleaded to be null, il-
legal, void and liable to be set aside.
2 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
4.4 During consolida on proceedings, the land so inherited illegally
by the defendant was separated from other co-sharers, including Ajmer Singh
and others, wherein the defendant claimed 1/9th share out of 2383 bigha 10
biswa, comprised in khewat No.1, khatauni Nos.1 to 26, as per the jamabandi
for the year 1955-56. A=er consolida on, land measuring 810 kanal 17 marla
was allo6ed to defendant No.1, comprised in khewat No.1, khatauni No.1,
total ki6as 115, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1960-61, a=er ex-
cluding the land sold by the defendant prior to consolida on. Over a period
of me, defendant No.1 alienated substan al por ons of the land. As per the
jamabandi for the year 1983-84, he is now le= with only the suit land meas-
uring 185 kanal 9 marla, having already disposed of the remaining land.
4.5 The further case of the plain ff is that upon the death of Ishar
Singh, his en re estate legally devolved upon his widow, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur,
she being his sole legal heir. However, in order to avoid family discord and
li ga on, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur admi6ed defendant No.1 as en tled to ½ share
in the land. The plain ff's mother and defendant No.1 lived together and
jointly enjoyed the income and profits from the land up to the years 1981-
82. Taking undue advantage of the trust reposed in him, defendant No.1 sold
almost the en re land, except the present suit land, without the knowledge
or authority of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur.
4.6 During her life me, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur was never aware of
Muta on No.183 dated 07.07.1960 having been sanc oned exclusively in fa-
vour of defendant No.1. The plain ff also remained unaware of the said
muta on un l 04.08.1989. It was only on 05.08.1989 that the plain ff came
to know about the wrongful muta on, when she obtained a copy thereof
from the concerned Patwari while ins tu ng a civil suit rela ng to a house
situated in village Shahnal against defendant No.1.
4.7 Smt. Bhagwan Kaur expired in the year 1983. It is claimed that
since defendant No.1 had already alienated most of the land, the en re re-
maining suit land measuring 185 kanal 9 marla, which is even less than half
3 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
share of the original holding of Ishar Singh, effec vely represents the share of
the plain ff's mother. The plain ff, being the sole legal heir of Smt. Bhagwan
Kaur, thus claims herself to be en tled to the suit land.
4.8 It is further alleged that a=er the death of the plain ff's mother,
defendant No.1 illegally leased out the suit land to proforma defendant No.2
at rate of ₹2200/- per acre, without any right or authority.
4.9 Despite repeated requests made by the plain ff to defendant
No.1 to acknowledge her ownership and possession over the suit land, the
defendant failed to do so, compelling the plain ff to ins tute the present suit
seeking possession of the suit land and a declara on that Muta on No.183
dated 07.07.1960 is null, illegal and void, along with a further declara on that
defendant No.1 is not en tled to receive any lease money from proforma de-
fendant No.2.
5.1 Defence : Defendant No.1 contested the suit by asser ng that
defendant No.2 is an improper party and by raising preliminary objec ons re-
garding locus standi, absence of cause of ac on, limita on and estoppel. It
was pleaded that the suit, filed in the year 1989, is hopelessly barred by me,
the challenged Muta on of Inheritance No.183 having been entered on
15.01.1956 and sanc oned on 07.07.1960, and having remained unchal-
lenged for nearly three decades. The plain ff was also sought to be estopped
by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit.
5.2 On merits, defendant No.1 did not dispute the rela onship of
the par es to the extent that the plain ff is the daughter of Ishar Singh and
Smt. Bhagwan Kaur and also admi6ed that Gulab Singh, brother of Ishar
Singh, was married to Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, and that a=er the death of Gulab
Singh in the year 1944, he himself was born in the year 1947. However, con-
tes ng the other allega ons, defendant No.1 categorically denied the
plain ff's asser on that Ishar Singh had merely allowed his name to be recor-
ded as the defendant's father for reasons of social pres ge. On the contrary,
he pleaded that a=er the death of Gulab Singh, his mother, Smt. Bhagwant
4 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
Kaur, performed a valid karewa marriage with Ishar Singh in accordance with
customary rites, and that he was born out of the lawful wedlock between Is-
har Singh and Smt. Bhagwant Kaur. Consequently, he claimed himself to be
the legi mate son and heir of Ishar Singh.
5.3 Defendant No.1 denied all allega ons of fraud or collusion with
the revenue authori es and asserted that it was specifically pleaded that
Muta on No.183 was entered on 15.01.1956 and subsequently lawfully sanc-
oned on 07.07.1960 in an open mee ng, to the knowledge of all concerned,
including Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, who remained alive un l the year 1983, yet
never challenged the validity of the said muta on during her life me. The
muta on was thus pleaded to be legal, valid and conferring full ownership
rights upon the defendant. The present suit, having been filed by the plain ff
in the year 1989, that is, a=er a lapse of nearly thirty years from the date of
sanc on of the muta on, was pleaded to be grossly me-barred.
5.4 It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 has been in exclus-
ive, con nuous and cul va ng possession of the suit land since the death of
Ishar Singh, without objec on or interference from any quarter. On this basis,
it was asserted that even otherwise, the defendant has perfected his tle by
adverse possession, having remained in open and hos le possession for more
than twelve years to the knowledge of the plain ff and her predecessor-in-in-
terest.
5.5 The defendant denied that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur ever jointly en-
joyed the income from the land or that she and the defendant lived together
as alleged. He further denied that the plain ff acquired any right in the suit
property or that she is the sole legal heir of Ishar Singh. The plea that the
plain ff gained knowledge of the muta on only in August 1989 was also spe-
cifically denied.
5.6 On these asser ons and while controver ng the remaining aver-
ments of the plaint, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit with
costs.
5 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
6.1 Findings of the Trial Court : A=er framing the necessary issues,
the Trial Court considered the evidence led by the par es and while deciding
the issue of rela onship, held that a=er the death of Gulab Singh in 1944, his
widow Smt. Bhagwant Kaur had performed a karewa marriage with Ishar
Singh, and that defendant Hardayal Singh was born from the said wedlock.
6.2 It was held further that Ishar Singh died on 10.11.1955, prior to
the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On his death, his widow
Smt. Bhagwan Kaur inherited ½ share of the agricultural land le= by him,
though ini ally as a limited owner. Upon coming into force of the Hindu Suc-
cession Act, her limited estate stood enlarged and she became the absolute
owner of the said share. It was further held that upon the death of Smt.
Bhagwan Kaur, the plain ff, being her sole legal heir, inherited her en re
share.
6.3 The Trial Court further held that upon the death of Smt. Bhag-
wan Kaur, the plain ff, being her sole legal heir, inherited the said ½ share in
the land originally le= by Ishar Singh. The Trial Court found that Muta on of
Inheritance No.183, sanc oned on 07.07.1960, had been effected without
any no ce, knowledge or consent of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, and therefore, the
said muta on was not binding upon the plain ff.
6.4 The Trial Court no ced that out of the land measuring 810 kanal
17 marla, which came to be held a=er the death of Ishar Singh, the defendant
had alienated major por ons and that only the suit land measuring 185 kanal
9 marla remained. Since the suit land was less than the share inherited by
Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, the plain ff was held en tled to ownership and posses-
sion of the en re suit land.
6.5 The Trial Court rejected the plea of adverse possession and held
that the suit, being founded on inheritance, was within limita on. Accord-
ingly, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992, the Trial Court decreed
the suit, declared the plain ff to be owner in possession of the suit land and
held Muta on No.183 to be null and void.
6 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
7.1 Findings of the First Appellate Court : Aggrieved by trial court
findings, the defendant preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court, on re-
appraisal of the record, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. It addi onally
held that the alleged oral relinquishment dated 06.10.1959, recorded in the
impugned muta on, was legally ineffec ve, as it pertained to immovable
property of a value exceeding ₹100 and so, could not be given effect to in the
absence of a registered instrument.
7.2 The Appellate Court further held that on the death of Ishar
Singh, his widow and the defendant inherited the property in equal shares, as
a daughter had no right of inheritance at the relevant me. Consequently,
the defendant had no right in the share inherited by Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, and
the sanc on of Muta on No.183 was erroneous.
7.3 Finding no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Trial
Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated
27.07.1996, thereby affirming the decree in favour of the plain ff.
8.1 Conten ons on behalf of the Appellant-Defendant : Learned
counsel for the appellant assailed the concurrent judgments on mul ple
grounds. It was contended that there is a categorical concurrent finding that
defendant Hardayal Singh was born from the karewa marriage between Ishar
Singh and Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, and therefore, he was the legi mate son and
natural heir of Ishar Singh. It was argued that long prior to the death of Ishar
Singh, a family se6lement dated 06.08.1951 had been effected, whereby
Ishar Singh distributed his holdings by giving 92 bighas to Smt. Bhagwan Kaur,
200 bighas to his daughter Gurcharan Kaur (plain ff) and 300 bighas to
Hardayal Singh (defendant), while retaining 300 bighas for himself. This
se6lement was duly reflected in Muta on No.143, sanc oned on 02.04.1955
(Ex.P-2).
8.2 On the ques on of succession, it was contended that the par es
being Jat agriculturalists, were governed by Punjab customary law, applicable
to Haryana, under which a widow does not inherit agricultural land in the
7 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
presence of a son prior to the Hindu Succession Act. Reliance was placed on
precedents to submit that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937
did not apply to agricultural land, and therefore, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur did not
inherit any estate from Ishar Singh on his death on 01.11.1955. Con-
sequently, she could not derive the benefit of Sec on 14 of the Hindu Succes-
sion Act, 1956, and the en re inheritance rightly devolved upon the defend-
ant alone.
8.3 It was further contended that Ishar Singh died on 01.11.1955,
prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and a=er consol-
ida on of holdings, land measuring 810 kanal 17 marla was allo6ed to the
defendant in lieu of the 300 bighas retained by Ishar Singh under the family
se6lement. Learned counsel emphasised that when Muta on No.183 was
entered on 15.01.1956, the defendant was merely nine years old, and when
it was ul mately sanc oned on 07.07.1960, he was only thirteen years of
age, making any allega on of fraud or connivance with the revenue authorit-
ies wholly implausible. It was contended that the presump on of correctness
a6ached to muta on proceedings operates in favour of the defendant, and in
the absence of any specific plea or proof of fraud against revenue authori es,
the muta on could not have been invalidated.
8.4 A6en on was drawn to the fact that during the muta on pro-
ceedings, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur herself made a statement on 06.10.1959 be-
fore the Assistant Collector, agreeing that her share be mutated in favour of
the defendant, and only therea=er the Muta on No.183 was sanc oned. It
was argued that this statement cons tutes a clear act of relinquishment and
evidences an oral family arrangement, which does not require registra on.
Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that family se6le-
ments resolving inter se rights are enforceable even if oral, and cannot be un-
se6led a=er decades of acquiescence.
8.5 It was argued that the plea of ignorance of muta on raised by
the plain ff is false, as even PW-2, a witness of the plain ff, admi6ed the
8 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
statement of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur during the muta on proceedings. The
plain ff herself did not enter the witness box to depose on ma6ers within
her personal knowledge, and her silence, coupled with her long acquies-
cence, operates as estoppel.
8.6 Learned counsel further submi6ed that all subsequent
jamabandis from 1959-60 ll 1983-84 (Ex.D-2 to Ex.D-7) consistently record
the defendant as owner in possession of the land. During this period, the de-
fendant alienated over 625 kanal of land, leaving only 185 kanal 9 marla as
the suit land, yet neither Smt. Bhagwan Kaur nor the plain ff ever raised any
objec on, despite Smt. Bhagwan Kaur residing in the same house as the de-
fendant.
8.7 It was further submi6ed that the plain ff, having accepted and
remained in possession of 200 bighas allo6ed to her under the 1951 family
se6lement, cannot now be permi6ed to challenge the same se6lement.
8.8 Learned counsel also pressed the plea of limita on, contending
that the suit was filed nearly thirty years a=er the sanc on of the muta on,
during which period, the rights had crystallised and aliena ons had taken
place openly and to the knowledge of all concerned. It was argued that long,
exclusive and hos le possession of the defendant to the exclusion of other
heirs, beginning from the date of muta on, cons tuted adverse possession,
par cularly when the muta on itself was within the knowledge of Smt. Bhag-
wan Kaur.
8.9 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, by order
dated 14.03.1997, this Court, while gran ng interim protec on against dis-
possession, directed the appellant to deposit a lump sum amount of
₹2,00,000/- within two months, and therea=er to deposit ₹1,00,000/- per
crop on or before 5th May and 1st December of each year, ll the disposal of
the appeal. The order further mandated that the amounts so deposited were
to be invested in a fixed deposit by the Registry, to be released to the party
ul mately found en tled thereto. It was also s pulated that, in the event of
9 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
default, the interim order would stand vacated automa cally and the respon-
dent-plain ff would be en tled to recover possession. It is submi6ed by Ld.
Counsel that although the appellant complied with the aforesaid condi on
for a considerable period, he was subsequently unable to con nue deposi ng
the amounts, whereupon, during the pendency of the appeal, possession of
the suit property came to be taken by the respondent-plain ff. It is urged
that, should the appeal succeed, the appellant would be en tled to res tu-
on in terms of Sec on 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including restora-
on of possession of the suit property, together with refund of the amounts
deposited pursuant to the interim order.
8.10 In view of the long-standing family se6lement, the consistent
revenue record, the admi6ed possession and aliena ons, the absence of
challenge during the life me of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, and the bar of limita on,
learned counsel submi6ed that the Courts below commi6ed a serious error
in seLng aside Muta on No.183 and decreeing the suit. On these grounds,
prayer was made for allowing the appeal, by seLng aside the judgments and
decrees of the Courts below, and for dismissing the suit of the plain ff.
9.1 Conten ons on behalf of the Respondent-Plain ff : Refu ng the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, learned senior counsel for
the respondent-plain ff contended that the suit is founded on the right of in-
heritance, and therefore, no period of limita on is a6racted, as has been
held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. Kashmira Singh
AIR 1985 P & H 215.
9.2 It was further submi6ed that even otherwise, where a suit seeks
recovery of possession of immovable property based on tle, the period of
limita on is twelve years, which begins to run only when the opposite party
establishes a case of adverse possession. It was argued that in the present
case, the defendant has neither pleaded nor proved the essen al ingredients
of adverse possession. On the contrary, his possession was in the capacity of
a co-sharer, along with Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, and possession of one co-sharer
10 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
cannot be treated as adverse to the other unless there is a clear and unequi-
vocal act of ouster, which is completely absent in the present case.
9.3 Learned senior counsel further submi6ed that muta on pro-
ceedings do not create or ex nguish tle, and that the revenue record serves
only a fiscal purpose. It was contended that a co-sharer cannot relinquish or
transfer his or her share in immovable property except by way of a registered
instrument, and that mere consent or par cipa on in muta on proceedings
does not amount to relinquishment of ownership rights. Reliance in this re-
gard was placed on Vishwanath Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Law
Finder Doc Id #2531025).
9.4 Learned senior counsel further submi6ed that a=er the enforce-
ment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur became abso-
lute owner of her share under Sec on 14 of the Act and, upon her death, the
plain ff alone succeeded to her estate.
9.5 Defending the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts be-
low, learned senior counsel submi6ed that both Courts, upon proper appreci-
a on of evidence, have recorded concurrent findings of fact, holding the im-
pugned muta on to be invalid and the plain ff en tled to inheritance.
9.6 It was argued that such findings are neither perverse nor con-
trary to law and do not give rise to any substan al ques on of law warran ng
interference in appeal. On these submissions, learned senior counsel prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Substan al Ques ons of Law : Upon hearing learned counsel for
the par es and considering the record, the following substan al ques ons of
law arise for considera on in the present second appeal:
(i) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that Muta on No.183
dated 07.07.1960 did not confer tle upon the appellant-defendant and was
not binding upon the respondent-plain ff?
11 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
(ii) Whether an alleged oral relinquishment or statement made by a co-sharer
during muta on proceedings, without a registered instrument, can legally
divest her of rights in immovable property?
(iii) Whether the plea of adverse possession was legally maintainable in the
facts of the case, par cularly when the appellant claimed tle by inheritance?
(iv) Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from any
perversity or misapplica on of se6led principles of law warran ng
interference under Sec on 100 CPC?
11. Having heard learned counsel for the par es at length and upon
a careful reappraisal of the en re record, this Court finds merit in the present
appeal.
12. Analysis and Reasons : This Court is conscious of the limited ju-
risdic on vested under Sec on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though
ordinarily, concurrent findings are not interfered with in appellate jurisdic-
on, it is equally well se6led that such restraint does not apply, where the
findings are founded on a misapplica on of se6led principles of law or suffer
from inherent legal inconsistency. Interference in a Regular Second Appeal is
also permissible, when the findings recorded by the Courts below are shown
to be perverse and based on misreading of evidence, though at the same
me, mere possibility of an alterna ve view does not warrant any interfer-
ence.
13. It is not in dispute that Ishar Singh died on 01.11.1955, i.e. prior
to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is significant that
there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below to the
effect that Hardayal Singh was born from the karewa marriage between Ishar
Singh and Smt. Bhagwant Kaur. This finding has not been assailed before this
court by the respondent-plain ff. Once this founda onal fact regarding the
legi macy of the defendant as the son of Ishar Singh stands judicially
affirmed, the legal consequences flowing therefrom could not have been
12 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
ignored and the en re founda on of the plain ff's claim, premised on
exclusive inheritance through Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, becomes untenable.
14. Succession to agricultural land prior to Hindu Succession Act,
1956 : Ishar Singh died on 10.11.1955. It is se6led law that succession never
remains in abeyance and the rights of heirs crystallise on the date of death of
the last male holder under the then prevailing law, as has been observed in
Mohinder Singh v. Kashmira Singh, 1985 PLJ 82; and Legal Heirs of
Gangaben Mo ji Thakor v. Manek Lal Ishwarlal Patel, Law Finder Doc-ID
#1385278.
15. Therefore, succession to the estate of deceased Ishar Singh
opened on his death in November 1955, i.e., prior to the enforcement of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Succession to agricultural land prior to the Hindu
Succession Act was governed by customary law. Succession, therefore, in this
case opened under the customary law applicable to agricultural land
prevailing in the then District Hisar of erstwhile Punjab/ Haryana region. It is
well se6led that under such customary law, a widow was excluded from
inheritance in the presence of a son. In a special reference by the Governor
General, 'in the ma@er of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937',
A.I.R. 1941, Federal Court 72, it was held that the world 'property' as used in
Sec on 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act does not include the
agricultural land.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the Hindu
Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 did not apply to agricultural land gov-
erned by custom and that, under such customary law, a widow was excluded
from inheritance in the presence of a son.
17. In the present case, no evidence has been led to establish any
special or local custom en tling a widow to inherit her husband's estate in
the presence of a son by another wife. The reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for
the respondent - plain ff on Bachan Singh v. Mt. Nand Kaur, 1952 ILR
(Punjab) 297; and Daljit vs. Inder Kaur 1956 PLR 295, is misplaced, as those
13 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
decisions turned on a special custom prevalent in Ludhiana & Amritsar
District respec vely, which has not been proved to exist in District Hisar.
18. In the absence of proof of such custom, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur was
not en tled to inherit the estate of Ishar Singh, except for maintenance, as
the succession had opened in 1955 in the presence of a legi mate son. Con-
sequently, the plain ff, claiming as her successor-in-interest, cannot assert
any inheritable right in the suit property.
19. Inapplicability of Sec on 14 of the Hindu Succession Act : Once
it is held that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur inherited no estate whatsoever, the very
founda on for applying Sec on 14 of the Hindu Succession Act disappears, as
Sec on 14 enlarges a pre-exis ng limited right; and does not create a new
tle where none existed. Sec on 14 operates only where a female Hindu was
possessed of property in recogni on of a pre-exis ng right. Where no estate
vested in her at the me of opening of the succession, there can be no
enlargement of rights.
20. This principle stands authorita vely se6led by the Cons tu on
Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy,
(1977) 3 SCC 99, and also by a subsequent decision in Sadhu Singh v.
Gurdwara Sahib Narike, (2006) 8 SCC 75, holding that Sec on 14 does not
create tle but merely enlarges an exis ng one.
21. Since Smt. Bhagwan Kaur did not inherit any interest in the agri-
cultural land upon the death of Ishar Singh, Sec on 14 had no applica on
whatsoever. The Courts below, despite holding the defendant to be the legi -
mate son of Ishar, proceeded to confer inheritance rights upon the widow,
on the reasoning that the alleged share of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur stood enlarged
into absolute ownership under Sec on 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. This
reasoning is legally impermissible and renders the findings inherently incon-
sistent. The Courts below, thus, commi6ed a manifest error of law in holding
that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur became absolute owner under Sec on 14.
14 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
22. Family se@lement of 1951 and its legal effect : The material on
record further establishes that a family se6lement dated 06.08.1951 was
effected by Ishar Singh during his life me, under which specific por ons of
land were allo6ed to his wife, daughter and son, while he retained a por on
for himself. This se6lement was not merely oral, but stood acted upon and
reflected in Muta on No.143, sanc oned on 02.04.1955 (Ex.P2). The par es
remained in possession of their respec ve shares in accordance with the said
se6lement for decades, without any demur. A family arrangement which has
been acted upon, accepted and relied upon for a long period, cannot be
unse6led a=er the lapse of nearly three decades.
23. Family se6lements are looked upon with great favour by courts
as they bring about amity and avoid future disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolida on & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119,
held that a bona fide family arrangement, even if oral, does not require
registra on and ought to be upheld, if it has been acted upon. Similar
principles were reiterated in Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC
481 and Hari Shankar Singhania v. Gaur Hari Singhania, (2006) 4 SCC 658.
24. In the present case, the family se6lement of 1951 was not only
acknowledged in revenue records but was also followed by long-standing
possession and subsequent aliena ons.
25. Muta on No.183; Presump on of Correctness, and Allega on
of Fraud: The core issue revolves around the legal effect of Muta on No.183
dated 07.07.1960. A=er the death of Ishar Singh on 01.11.1955, this Muta-
on of Inheritance No.183 was entered on 15.01.1956 and eventually sanc-
oned on 07.07.1960.
26. It is trite that muta on entries do not, by themselves, confer or
ex nguish tle. Nevertheless, they carry a presump on of correctness and
assume considerable significance when supported by long-standing posses-
sion, consistent revenue entries, and the conduct of the par es over an ex-
tended period. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997)
15 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
7 SCC 137, has held that revenue entries reflec ng a se6led state of affairs
over a long period cannot be brushed aside lightly, par cularly when they re-
main unchallenged and are acted upon.
27. In present case, when Muta on No.183 was entered on
15.01.1956 in favour of the defendant-Hardayal Singh, he was admi6edly a
minor, being less than nine years of age. The original muta on is in Urdu
script and its cer fied copy is on record as Ex.D10. Since both par es
produced their own Hindi transla ons and a dispute arose regarding their
accuracy, this Court directed the Transla on Branch to place on record an
English transla on of Ex.D10. The said translated version has not been
disputed by either side and has accordingly been relied upon.
28. A perusal of the muta on proceedings reveals that on
06.10.1958, during a general mee ng, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, widow of Ishar
Singh, appeared before the Assistant Collector II Grade and was duly iden -
fied by Ghamdur Singh, Numberdar of the village. She made a categorical
statement that the inheritance of deceased Ishar Singh be registered in the
name of Hardayal Singh, his son, to the extent of her half share. The ma6er
was therea=er adjourned for securing the appearance of Hardayal Singh. On
the subsequent dates, i.e., 24.01.1960, 30.01.1960, and 12.04.1960, Hardayal
Singh did not appear. Eventually, on 07.07.1960, the muta on was again
taken up in a general mee ng in the presence of Ghamdur Singh, Numberdar,
who happened to be the uterine brother of Hardayal Singh and Harcharan
Singh, Biswedar of the village. Upon no cing that Ishar Singh had died on
09.11.1955, i.e., prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
the muta on of inheritance was sanc oned in favour of Hardayal Singh as
the only son of the deceased.
29. The plea raised by the plain ff alleging fraud and collusion
between the defendant Hardayal Singh and the revenue officials in sanc on-
ing Muta on No.183 is wholly misconceived and unsupported by the record.
At the me of entry of the muta on on 15.01.1956, Hardayal Singh was ad-
16 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
mi6edly less than nine years of age, and even on the date of its final sanc on
on 07.07.1960, he was only about thirteen years old. The muta on proceed-
ings remained pending for nearly four years, during which period, Hardayal
Singh never appeared before the revenue authori es on any of the dates
fixed.
30. The proceedings themselves demonstrate that the muta on was
sanc oned on the basis of a voluntary statement made by Smt. Bhagwan
Kaur, widow of Ishar Singh, before the Assistant Collector II Grade, a=er due
iden fica on by the village Numberdar and in the presence of the Biswedar.
No material has been brought on record to show that the said statement was
obtained by misrepresenta on, coercion, or deceit, nor is there any pleading
or proof of fraud a6ributable to the revenue officials who discharged their
statutory func ons.
31. It is well se6led that allega ons of fraud must be pleaded with
specificity and proved by cogent evidence. A vague asser on of collusion,
without par culars as to me, manner, or par cipa on of the alleged wrong-
doers, cannot be accepted, par cularly when the record reflects that the be-
neficiary of the muta on was a minor throughout the proceedings and had
no role whatsoever in their conduct. The presump on that official acts have
been regularly performed further operates in favour of the validity of the
muta on proceedings, especially when they stood unques oned for nearly
three decades.
32. In the absence of any credible evidence to establish fraud or col-
lusion, and keeping in view the age of the defendant at the relevant me, the
plea of fraudulent sanc on of Muta on No.183 is rejected as an a=er-
thought, raised only to unse6le a long-se6led state of affairs reflected con-
sistently in the revenue record and acted upon by the par es for several dec-
ades.
33. Significantly, following the sanc on of muta on N: 183 in 1960,
in the subsequent revenue record, including jamabandis spanning from
17 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
1959-60 to 1983-84 (Ex.D2 to Ex.D7), consistently records the defendant as
owner in possession of the land. During this prolonged period, the defendant
openly alienated substan al por ons of the land, leaving only the suit land,
yet no objec on was ever raised either by Smt. Bhagwan Kaur during her life-
me, or by the plain ff for nearly thirty years. Such long and unexplained si-
lence operates as acquiescence and estoppel against the plain ff.
34. Such long, uninterrupted acquiescence, coupled with consistent
revenue entries and open acts of ownership, lends strong corrobora on to
the validity of the muta on proceedings and materially undermines the be-
lated challenge raised for the first me in 1989. The law does not counten-
ance the unse6ling of se6led tles and long-accepted arrangements a=er
decades of silence. Equity, as well as public policy, disfavour such stale
claims, par cularly where third-party rights have intervened and the revenue
record has remained unchallenged for a genera on.
35. It is well se6led that although a muta on entry by itself does not
confer any tle, but once such entry is sanc oned on the statement or
admission of the interested party and is therea=er carried forward into
successive jamabandis, a statutory presump on of correctness a6aches to it
under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
36. In Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Sain, AIR 1929 Lahore 93, the
Lahore High Court authorita vely held that when muta on entries are
incorporated in jamabandis, they carry a presump on of correctness under
Sec on 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The Court further no ced that
where the party concerned or his close rela on was present and admi6ed
the transfer at the me of muta on proceedings, such entries a6ain
eviden ary value and are presumed to reflect the true state of affairs. This
principle was consistently followed in Atri v. Rodhal, AIR 1936 Lahore 864
and Nizam-Ud-Din v. Fateh Din, AIR 1940 (Lahore) 118. This line of reasoning
was later affirmed by this Court in Pritam Kaur v. Chanan Singh, 1985 PLJ
488, wherein it was held that muta on proceedings cannot be brushed aside
18 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
merely because the revenue officials who sanc oned the muta on were not
examined as witnesses. Reliance was also placed on the presump on that
official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed, a principle
reiterated by the Punjab High Court in Smt. Raj Kumari v. Co-opera ve
Insurance Company Ltd., Amritsar 1951 PLR 291, again drawing strength
from Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Sain (supra).
37.1 This jurisprudence was further crystallised in Karan Singh v.
Surta, 2005 (1) PLR 845. In that case, the plain ff sought a declara on
challenging a muta on sanc oned in 1948 on the plea that it was effected
without his knowledge. Rejec ng the challenge, this Court held that where a
muta on was sanc oned on the admission of the par es concerned and
allowed to stand unchallenged for decades, the party making such admission
is estopped from resiling from it a=er an inordinate lapse of me. Relying
upon Nizam Din & Ors. v. Godar & Ors., AIR 1934 PC 40; Ram Sarup v. Ram
Saran, AIR 1926 Lahore 650; Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Sain (supra); and
other precedents, the Court held that the statutory presump on a6ached to
muta on entries under Sec on 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act cannot be
lightly displaced and that long acquiescence strengthens the plea of estoppel.
37.2 Significantly, the Court also observed that where a family
arrangement or understanding between close rela ons has been consciously
allowed to operate for several decades, it cannot be unse6led at the instance
of a successor a=er a long interval. The challenge raised a=er nearly 30 years
was therefore held to be barred both on principles of estoppel and delay.
37.3 The ra o of the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of
the present case. Here, Muta on No. 183 was sanc oned on 07.07.1960 on
the express statement of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur transferring her ½ share in
favour of Hardayal. The said entry was therea=er consistently reflected in
subsequent revenue records. Notably, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur remained alive ll
1983 and never assailed the muta on during her life me. The plain ff,
claiming as her successor-in-interest, sought to challenge the muta on only
19 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
a=er a lapse of nearly 29 years. In such circumstances, the plain ff cannot be
permi6ed to reopen a se6led posi on which stood affirmed by revenue
records for decades and was never disputed by the very person at whose
instance the muta on was sanc oned.
38. It is also important to no ce that the plain ff did not step into
the witness box and examined her husband as an a6orney, who was
incompetent to depose regarding her knowledge or that of Smt. Bhagwan
Kaur. The explana on that the muta on came to light only in 1989 is wholly
implausible in view of con nuous revenue entries and large-scale aliena ons.
Such evasive conduct further weakens the plain ff's case.
39. In view of the above, the findings of the Courts below holding
the plain ff en tled to inheritance by declaring Muta on No.183 as null and
void, are contrary to the se6led principles of law and the evidence on record.
40. Acquiescence, Estoppel, and Delay : As noted above, Smt.
Bhagwan Kaur remained alive ll 1983 and never challenged the muta on or
subsequent revenue entries. The plain ff ins tuted the suit only in 1989,
nearly 29 years a=er the muta on was sanc oned. During this period, the
defendant openly dealt with the land as absolute owner and alienated
substan al por ons thereof without objec on. Such prolonged silence and
conscious inac on amount to acquiescence and a6ract the doctrine of
estoppel.
41. This principle has been consistently applied by this Court to hold
that a person who admits or allows an arrangement to con nue cannot resile
a=er decades. Reliance may be placed on Karan Singh v. Surta (supra). A
se6led family or revenue arrangement, allowed to operate for over 30 years,
cannot be unse6led at the instance of a successor who stood by silently.
42. Limita on and Adverse Possession : Even assuming arguendo
that Smt. Bhagwan Kaur had inherited any share, the defendant has proved
con nuous, open, exclusive and hos le possession of the suit land since at
20 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
least 1960. His possession was to the knowledge of all concerned and was
accompanied by overt acts of ownership, including repeated aliena ons. As
held by this court in Jagir Singh v. Smt. Gurdial Kaur, 1992 (2) RRR 92, when
an heir enters into possession as sole heir to the exclusion of others, adverse
possession begins.
43. Though a suit for possession based on tle is not per se barred
by limita on, it is well se6led that such a suit must fail, where the defendant
proves perfec on of tle by adverse possession, as held in Mohinder Singh v.
Kashmira Singh, (supra). The reliance placed by the plain ff on Rustam v.
Ramzan, 2002 (1) LJR 265 and Piru v. Balbir Singh & Ors., Law Finder Doc Id
# 1230381, is of no avail, as in the present case adverse possession stands
clearly established by long, uninterrupted, and hos le enjoyment.
44. Limita on and Belated Challenges to Muta on : The aspect of
limita on also weighs decisively against the respondent. In Marru Ram v.
Khetaram, AIR 2016 (P&H) 187, a suit filed a=er 31 years of sanc oning of
muta on of inheritance was dismissed, notwithstanding the plea that the
plain ff had acquired knowledge of the Will only shortly before filing the suit.
This Court held that where revenue entries had existed for decades, a
belated challenge beyond the prescribed period of limita on was wholly
unjus fied.
45. Applying the same principle, the present challenge, raised
almost three decades a=er the sanc on of muta on and long a=er it had
been reflected in successive jamabandis, is clearly barred by limita on. The
plea of ignorance, even if assumed, cannot override the construc ve no ce
arising from public revenue records.
46. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on
Balkishan v. Singram, 1986 RRR 455, to contend that muta on proceedings
lacking signatures or thumb impressions do not amount to an
acknowledgment under Sec on 18 of the Limita on Act. The said judgment,
however, is clearly dis nguishable. The present case does not turn upon
21 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
acknowledgment for extension of limita on under Sec on 18 of the
Limita on Act, but on estoppel arising from an admi6ed transfer, long
acquiescence, and statutory presump on a6ached to revenue entries.
Therefore, the ra o of Balkishan's case (supra) has no applica on to the facts
at hand.
47. Reliance was also placed on Shri Basappa v. Srima Bhimawwa
(Law Finder Doc-Id-#1821723), wherein a Division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court held that relinquishment of rights in immovable property must be
through a registered deed and that muta on based on an unregistered
consent le6er does not confer tle. The said authority operates in an en rely
different factual and legal milieu. In that case, the muta on was founded on
an unregistered consent le6er and was immediately disputed by the
claimants seeking par on. In the present case, however, the muta on was
sanc oned on the express statement of the transferor herself and remained
unchallenged for decades, thereby a6rac ng the doctrines of estoppel,
acquiescence, and limita on, apart from the statutory presump on under
the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
48. The belated challenge raised in the year 1989, nearly three
decades a=er the sanc on of muta on, is thus hit by the principles underly-
ing limita on and repose. Even in suits based on tle, courts cannot ignore
long, se6led possession, openly exercised to the knowledge of the claimant.
The stale claims seeking to unse6le long-se6led rights are liable to be re-
jected on grounds of limita on and laches.
49. Conclusion and Opera ve Order : In view of the foregoing find-
ings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below suffer from a manifest error in disregarding the
applicable customary law, the presump on a6ached to long-standing rev-
enue entries and while applying the law of succession, limita on, and estop-
pel to the proved facts on record. The plain ff has failed to establish any in-
heritable right in the suit property; whereas, the defendant-appellant has
22 of 23
RSA No.2276 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 000917
successfully demonstrated lawful succession, se6led possession, and a bind-
ing family arrangement acted upon for decades. The suit, having been ins -
tuted a=er an inordinate and unexplained delay, is barred by limita on and is
otherwise hit by principles of estoppel and adverse possession.
50. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judg-
ments and decrees passed by the Courts below suffer from serious legal infir-
mi es and cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
The judgments and decrees dated 30.11.1992 passed by the Trial Court, and
dated 27.07.1996 passed by the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the
suit filed by the plain ff-respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
51. In view of the fact that the appeal has been allowed and the suit
of the plain ff-respondent stands dismissed in terms of the judgment
recorded hereinabove, the consequence in law must follow. The interim ar-
rangement dated 14.03.1997 having worked itself out, the appellant-defen-
dant is en tled to res tu on under Sec on 144 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure. Accordingly, the amount deposited by the appellant in compliance with
the order dated 14.03.1997 shall be refunded to him. Further, as a necessary
incident of res tu on, the possession of the suit property shall be restored to
the appellant-defendant, in con nua on of and consistent with the direc-
ons contained in the said order dated 14.03.1997.
January 08, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Uploaded on : January 09, 2026
23 of 23
