RANDHIR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS. versus BALWINDER KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 06-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
RANDHIR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS.
v.
BALWINDER KAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4629-4630 of  2019)
MAY 6, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Transfer of Property:
Exchange of property – Propriety of – Property donated to
school run by Education Society – For the specific purpose of
advancing the cause of education of children – The then Principal
of the School exchanged the land of the School (including the
donated land) with his own land situated in another village –
Thereafter the Principal leased the exchanged land to the School –
Suit by the donor seeking possession and in the alternative seeking
declaration that the exchange was illegal – Trial court denied decree
of possession while granted the alternative relief declaring the
exchange as illegal – First Appellate Court held that the donor had
no locus standi to agitate the matter after having executed the Gift
Deed – High Court in Second Appeal, affirmed the order of First
Appellate Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The appellate
courts wrongly confined their discussion to the prayer for
declaration for possession – Trial Court rightly decreed the suit on
alternative prayer as the purported exchange was collusive, illegal
and unauthorized – The Jamabandis reflecting the purported
exchange are quashed and set aside – Cost of Rs. 1 lac imposed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1 It has been erroneously held that the mutation
entries for exchange by Respondent No.1 was valid. The
purported oral exchange dated 01.08.1988, followed by the
Agreement dated 25.08.1988, between the then Principal of the
School, with the President of the School, was a wholly collusive
and illegal transaction. The exchange was illegal and unauthorized,
since there was no Resolution passed by the Education Society,
which was running the school, in favour of the President to
exchange the land owned and vested in the School pursuant to
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 234
234
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
the Gift Deed. The Principal and the President of the school
entered into this collusive transaction, whereby the then Principal
became the owner of the suit property. The school could not have
been divested of the ownership of the suit property by the so-
called exchange. This was in complete breach of faith and trust
by the President of the Society and Principal of the School.
[Paras 4.1 and 4.2] [241-B; E-H]
1.2 The so-called exchange was a mere ruse to transfer
the valuable land of the School which had been gifted by the
mother of the appellants, to the Principal, in exchange for some
unirrigated inferior quality banjar land situated in a remote corner
in a Village. Once the School was divested of ownership on the
basis of the purported exchange, the respondents executed a
Lease Deed in favour of the School, wherein the School was now
shown as a Lessee, and was required to pay lease rent to the
Principal and later his legal heirs. The purported exchange dated
01.08.1988 and 25.08.1988 being wholly illegal, is liable to be
quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis reflecting the purported
exchange are quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis be restored
by the revenue authorities in the name of the School.
[Paras 4.3 and 5] [242-C-E]
2. Even though, the appellants/plaintiffs had prayed for a
decree of possession of the land which had been gifted to
respondent No. 2-School; there was an alternate prayer made for
a decree of declaration that the School was the owner in possession
of the land which had been gifted to it, and that the mutation of
exchange was illegal, unlawful, and liable to be set aside. The
Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit on the alternate prayer.
The First Appellate Court and the High Court confined their
discussion only with respect to the prayer for declaration for
possession of the suit property. [Para 4.1] [241-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4629-
4630 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 2879 of 2015 (O&M)
and RSA No. 4771 of 2015 (O&M).
Ms. Tina Garg, M. K. Ghosh, Rohit Dutta, Advs. for the Appellants.
RANDHIR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS. v.
BALWINDER KAUR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Ms. Sonia Mathru, Sr. Adv., Vineet Talal, Sushil Kr. Dubey, Umesh
Kumar Khaitan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. Lea

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