MST. KIRPAL KAUR versus BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 15-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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-
<lent No. 1. 
, 
. 
1957. November 15. The following Judgment of 
the Court was delivered by. 
SARKAR J.-The only question for decision in this 
appeal is whether title had been acquired to certain 
lands by adverse possession. , 
Ram Ditta was a Hindu Jat of village Bhathal in 
District Bassi which was originally in Patiala but sub-
sequently came to be included in Patiala & Eastern 
Punjab States Union. He died in April or May 1920 
leaving certain lands w)lich were the subject matter 
of dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises. 
Ram Ditta had a son named J eona who predeceased 
him leaving a widow, Harnam Kaur. Harnam Kaur 
1957 
Kirpal Kaur 
v. 
Bachan Sillg/1 
Sarkar/. 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1958} 
1957 
· has a daughter, Kirpal Kaur and the latter is the 
Klrpal Kaur 
appellant before us. Kirpal Kaur has a son of the name 
v. 
of Satwant Singh. Ram Ditta had certain collateral 
Bachan Singh relations and the dispute was between them on the 
Sarkar J. 
one hand and Harnam Kaur and Kirpal Kaur on the 
other. 
These collaterals

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