GURBAKSH SINGH versus NIKKA SINGH

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 14-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
GURBAKSH SINGH 
v. 
NIKKA SINGH 
(S. J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR AND j. R. MUDHOLKAR, jj.) 
55 
Second Appeal-Failure of first appellate court to give 
finding on question of titk-Interference by High Court-Entry 
in revenue records-Presumption as to correctness-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. JOO-Punjab Land Revenue 
Act, 1887 (Punj. 17 of 1887), ss. 37 and 44. 
Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh were co-sharers in certain 
agricultural land. They partitioned the land taking l and 7 
shares respective I/ and applied for mutation of nan1es to the 
revenue authorities. In the mutation by mistake the entire land 
was shown against the name of Teja Singh. On discovering 
the mistake Jhandha Singh applied for correction of the entry. 
During the pendency of these proceedings Teja Singh died and 
his brother and heir· Mula Sim;h sold the entire land in favour 
of the appellant. Mula Singh appeared before the revenue 
authorities and adn1itted thr n1istake. On this admission and 
on the report of an enquiry inade into the nmtter by a 
subor~ 
dinate revenue officer the authorities corrected the mistake and 
the correct shares of ~feja Singh andjhandha Singh were shown 
as 1/8 and 7/8. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his 
exclusive title to the lan<l. 
The trial court decreed the suit 
holding that the corrected mutation entry \vhich was made on 
the admisson o; Mula Singh after he had already sold the pro-
perty was not properly made. 
On appeal the first appellate 
court upheld the decree, holdi1:g that Gurbaksh Singh was a 
bonafi<le 
0purchaser in good hiith but \Vithout givinr~ any finding 
on the question 
<~f title. 
In 
~C'COJH..l appeal the fligh Court 
reversed the finding.; and dismissed the suit. The appellant 
contended that the Hi![h Court had no jurisdiction to set aside 
concurrent findings of fact in second appeal and that no pre~­
umption could arh>c in favour of the corrected entry. 
Held, that the Hi3h Cuurt was justified in interfering in 
second appeal as the first appellate court had given no finding 
on the question of title. 
The finding that the appellant was a 
bonafide purch;i.ser in good taith \Vasn ot based upon any evi-
dence and the onus 
wa~ on the transferee to show that the 
nransferor \Vas the ostensible owner. '1'he appellant had full 
tkowledge of the defect in the title of Mula Singh. 
1962 
September 14. 
1962 
Gurba/uh Singh 
v. 
Nikko Singh 
.lbbba Raa, J. 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP. 
f 
. Held, further, that the presumption under s. 44 of the 
Punjab Land Revenue t'.ct arose that the Cllrrected entry was 
true as the entry \\'as ina<lc in accordance \Vi th la'"·· Section 37 
provided that such an entry could be made in accordance \Yith 
facts proved or admitted to have occurred. Though Mula Singh's 
admission after he had parted with the interest in tbe property, 
could not have been rehed upon, the entrv v:as n1ade in accor· 
dance with the facts proved before the ;.evenue authorities by 
the report of the subordinate revenue officer which recited the 
terms of the partition also. The appellant did not adduce any 
evidence to rebut the presumption. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 128 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated November 4, 1955, of the Punjab High 
Court in R. S. A. No. 493 of 1950. 
K. C. Sarpal, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, 
for appellant. 
Anant Rmn Whig and J. JJ. Aga.ru1al, for respon-
dent No. I. 
1962. September 14. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SuBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave 
is filed against the judgment and decree of the High 
Court of Punjab, at Chandigarh, in Second Appeal 
No. 493 of 1!150 setting aside the order of the Subor-
dinate Judge, Amritsar, confirming that of the 
Revenue Officer, Amritsar, decreeing the appellant's 
suit. 
The subject-matter of the appeal is land measur-
ing 9 kanals and 2 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 292 
and 296 in mauza Kot Syed Mahmud,in the District of 
Amritsar; the previous corresponding Khasra Nos. of 
the land were 324 and 328. This land formed part of 
a larger area which originally belonged to a number of 
co-sharers, including Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh. 
There was a partition a_n?-ong the said. co-sharers and 
pursuant to that partitJ.on, on April 20, 1929 an 
application was filed l before the Revenue Authorities 
' 
' 
, 
I 
: 
1 s.c.R. 
SUPREME C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.