MST. KIRPAL KAUR v. BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 950; 1957 INSC 102
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS , SYED JAFFER IMAM, A.K. SARKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1957 INSC 102. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1957-11-15. MST. KIRPAL KAUR v. BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
19S1 The Aggarwal Chambe•of Commerce, Ltd. v. Ga,npat Ra/ Hiralal KapurJ. 19S7 November~ 15~ 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1958] Liquidation Judge restored but in the circumstances of this case the. parties will bear their own costs in this court and in the courts below. Appeal allowed. MST. KIRPAL KAUR v. BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS (S. R. DAS C. J. , JAFER IMAM and A. K. SARKAR JJ. ) Adverse possession-Hindu J at widow in possession as full owner-Life estate by subsequent agreement with . :ollaterals-Agreement not registered-If admissible in evidence-Indiaii Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), s . . 49, On the death of R, a Hindu Jat, in April or May, 1920, the widow of his pre-deceased son, H, took possession of the properties and on August 24, 1920, obtained a mutation of the settlement records showing her as the owner of the lands in the place of R.
A gift of half of the properties by H to her daughter K gave rise to disputes between them and the collaterals but the matter was settled on H executing a document on February 6, 1932, whereby, inter alia, she agreed that the lands would belong to her for her life and after her death to her daughter for the latter's life and that none of them would be entitled to sell or mortgage the lands. The document, however, was not registered. In 1939 H made a gift of the entire lands to K who obtained a mutation of the settlement records show- ing her as the owner of the lands, and in 1945 a suit was ·filed . by the collaterals challenging the transaction as not 'binding on them as the reversionary heirs of R. Under the general custom governing the parties as admitted by them a widow of a pre-deceased son was entitled only to main- tenance when there were collaterals, and as H was in pos- session of th. e properties since 1920 it was said by .
her and 'K that she had, at the date of the gift, acquired an absolute title by adverse possession. It was contended for the plain- tiffs, inter alia, that the agreement of February, 1932, S. C. R. ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS 951 though not admissible in evidence to prove that H and K · had only life estates in the lands, was admissible to show the nature of H's possession and that it showed that her possession was not adverse. Held, that the document dated February 6, 1932, was inadmissible in evidence, in view of s. 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908; as H had been in possession before date of the document and to admit it in evidence to show the nature of her possession subsequent to it would be to treat it as operating to destroy the nature of the previous possession and to convert what had started as adverse pos- session into a permissive possession, and therefore, to give effect to the agreement contained in it. Varatha Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal, (1918) L. R. 46 I. A.
285, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1953. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the November 30, 1951, of the former Pepsu High Court in R. S. Appeal No. 49 of 1948 against the judgment and decree dated the May 1, 1948, of the Court of the District Judge, Patiala, in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1946-47, arising-from the judgment and decree dated the April 4, 1947, of the Court of the Sub Judge II Class, Bassi in Suit No. 721 of 1945. Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. Raghbir Singh and S. S. Dhillon, for the respon- ossession title to property as his heir or to make such property good to his estate. We think that the following obser- vation of the Judicial Committee in S'ham Koer v.
Dah Koer( 1 ) applies to this case : ''Assuming that Bhau Nath Singh was a member of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitak- shara law, as the Lower Court found and the High Court assumed, neither his widow nor his son's widow would be entitled to anything more than maintenance out of his estate. '1. 'heir poss. ession, therefore, of the three villages in question would be adverse to the reversionary heirs unless it was the result of the ar- rangement with them. If the possession was adverse, the rights of the reversionary heirs would of course be barred . at the expiration of twelve years from the (1) (1902) 29 I. A. IJ2, 135, 136. 122 1947 Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Sinch Sarkar J. 1957 November, 19 · 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] date of Bhau Nath Singh's death, or the date of the widows' taking possession, which seems to have been at or shortly after his death.
" As there is no evidence of any arrangement with the respondents under which Harnam Kaur can be said to have taken possession of the lands, her possession must be taken to have been adverse to the collaterals. Admittedly such possession commenced in 1920 on the death of Ram Ditta and has continued ever since. So at the date of the mortgage and gift, Harnam Kaur had acquired a title to the lands by adverse posses- sion. The respondents' claim must fail. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs through- out. Appeal allowed. SASH! MOHAN DEBNATH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
) Sessions Trial-Reference-Judge agreeing with jury's verdict of non-guilty on some of the charges but in dis- agreement with the verdict of guilty in respect of others- If must refer the whole case against the accused-Record· ing of judgment of acquittal in agreement with the jury's verdict-Legality-High Court if can act on a partial reference-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), SS. 307, 306. Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read together clearly indicate that where the Sessions Judge disagrees with the verdict of the jury and is of the opinion that the case should be submitted to the High Court, he must submit the whole case against the accused, not a part of it. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty in respect of some charges and not guilty in respect of others he cannot record his judgment of acquittal in respect of the latter charges in agreement with the jury In contravention of
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.