- (1.) The following pedigree table, as stated by the appellant, will be helpful in understanding the controversy. It is controversial if Mst. Chhoto was widow of Ram Kishan a pre-deceased son of Sheo Chand or if she was widow of Sheo Chand himself. On this the main controversy depends so far this appeal goes. The property in dispute contains two items :- (a) four Khasra numbers i.e. 33/1, 33/2, 33/10 and 34/10. (b) Khasra numbers 34/6, 34/7, 34/11 and 34/15 and one residential house. The whole of this property is situated in village Gharwali. Property in item No. (a) it is conceded belonged to Ran Singh and property at item No. (b) belonged to Sheo Chand. It is agreed at the bar that this Sheo Chand died before 1943 and Ran Singh died sometime in 1949 or thereabout.
(2.) Mst. Chhoto plaintiff claiming to be the widow of Ram Kishan, son of Sheo Chand who had pre-deceased his father, instituted the present suit for both items of the property mentioned above. It may be mentioned that Bhartu defendant No. 1 had effected sale of both the said items of property in favour of Jagar, defendant No. 2 on 4th January, 1957 and that Jagar in turn sold the residential house to defendant Jita and Mange Ram in 1958. The suit has obviously been resisted by the defendants. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :- (1) Is the plaintiff Chotto wife of Ram Kishan, son of Sheo Chand ? (2) If the issue No. 1 is proved, is she the owner of the property in dispute ? (3) Were the mutation Nos. 71 and 72 in favour of Ran Singh and Bhartu obtained by fraud ? If so to what effect ? (4) Was a house in dispute also obtained by Ran Singh and Bhartu by fraud from Mst. Chhoto ? (5) In case of proof of issue Nos. 3 and 4 is the sale in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 liable to set aside ? The issue relating to Court-fee and jurisdiction does not concern us now. The Court of first instance decided the first issue against the plaintiff holding that she had not proved that she was widow of Ram Kishan, son of Sheo Chand. Issue Nos. 2 and 4 were also decided against the plaintiff. Under issue No. 5 it was observed that defendant Jagar had purchased the property under a registered deed bona fide and for a valuable consideration without notice in the defect of the vendor's title. There being no evidence to show that Jagar had any knowledge about the existence of the supposed widow of Ram Kishan the trial Court observed that the possession of the bona fide purchaser was to be protected. The plaintiff's suit was thus dismissed with costs.
(3.) On appeal Shri B.L. Goswamy, District Judge. Sangrur took pains to go into the whole of the material on the record with care in a fairly well-reasoned judgment disagreed with the conclusions of the Court of first instance. According to the lower appellate Court some of the evidence consisting of copies of revenue papers produced in the Court contained a mistake in describing Sheo Chand to be the son of Jawhar instead of Mohra as in Urdu script such a mistake can commonly be committed. This mistake was held established by the learned District Judge from the other evidence on the record and the attending circumstances. The learned District Judge also came to a positive conclusion that Bhartu is a mere adventurer and seems to have been taking undue advantage of the sex or age of Mst. Chhoto or the circumstance that Mst. Chhoto had stopped living in this village after the death of her husband Ram Kishan. The manner in which Bhartu got mutation No. 72 entered in his own name within a couple of days also struck the learned District Judge to be extraordinary suggesting some kind of a collusion or arrangement between him and the revenue officials. Mutation No. 71 also appeared to the District Judge to have been got effected with extraordinary haste. It is desirable to reproduce the exact words of the learned District Judge :- When Ran Singh died about 10 or 11 years back Bhartu first got the land, standing in the name of Mst. Chhoto, to be mutated in the name of Ran Singh even though by the time, Ran Singh had already died. Exhibit P.W. 6/4 is a copy of mutation No. 71 on this point. It is significant that this mutation was entered in the Patwari papers on 25th October, 1951 and was decided by the Revenue Officer the following day on 26th October, 1951. On the same day 25th October, 1951, Bhartu had got the mutation No. 72 entered in his own name and got the same decided on 17th October, 1951. It is quite apparent that Bhartu was in league with the revenue officials who rushed through these mutations with such indecent haste behind the back of Mst. Chhoto. I would attach no evidential value at all to these mutations sanctioned in the name of Ran Singh and Bhartu".;