SMT. SAWARNI versus SMT. INDER KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SAWARNI 
A 
v. 
SMT. INDER KAUR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 : 
Suit for declaration of title : Plaintiff claimed herself and her sister to 
be daughters of the owner of land in dispute-Claim also based on Will 
executed by their mother and the succession certificate issued by Court-Al-
leged that defendants 1 to 4 trespassers--Def endants 1 to 4 claimed to have 
bonafide purchased land from the daughter of owner's brother, alleging to be 
second d0:ughter of owner and also having mlltation entry in her name-T1ial 
Court allowing Suit-Holding Plaintiff and her sister to be daughters of the D 
owner and defendants to be trespassers-First Appellate Court reversing 
decree based on mutation entry-High Court dismissing appeal in limine-On 
Appeal, Held-First appellate Court could not have reversed decree of Trial 
Judge without setting aside finding that plaintiff's sister was the second 
daughter of owner-Mutation-Does not convey title--Relevant only for pur-
poses of land revenue. 
c 
E 
Succession Act, 1925-Succession ce1tificate-lssued on basis of 
Will-Not challenged-Held-Cannot be ignored. 
Appellant-Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession F 
of certain land. It was the admitted fact that the owner of the suit land 
died, leaving behind his widow, K, and two daughters one of whom was S. 
The plaintiff alleged the suit land was willed by K in favour of S and R. 
After the death of K, on the basis of the Will, a Succession Certificate was 
issued by a Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff and R, who were entitled G 
to half the share each in the suit property. It was alleged that R was not 
beard of but defendant Nos. 8 & 9 were her sons and defendant No. 7 her 
husband, who were together entitled to R's half share in the property. The 
plaintiff alleged that 'I', defendant No. S forcibly occupied a portion of the 
disputed property and subsequently wrongfully sold it to defendant Nos. 
1 to 4, who were trespassers. 
H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The Trial Judge, while allowing the suit, held the Plaintiff and R to 
B 
be the daughters of G, on the basis of the Will and Succession Certificate 
issued umler the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He further held that 'I' was 
the daughter of the brother of G and not of G. Furthermore, since 'I' did 
not have anY. title, she could not convey a valid iitle to defendant Nos. 1 to 
4, who were trespassers. 
Appeals were filed before the First Appellate Court by I, claiming 
to be the daughter of G, and by the defendants 1 to 4 who claimed to be 
bonafide purchasers of Suit land from 'I'. The First Appellate Court, 
without setting aside the finding of fact of the Trial Court that R and not 
C 'I' was the second daughter, reversed the decree of the trial judge. It held 
that since mutation in revenue records was in the name of 'I', she was 
entitled to sell her share of the land and consequently, Defendant Nos. 1 
to 4 derived a valid title from 'I'. The High Court dismissed the Second 
Appeal in limine, against which Order the present Appeal by Special Leave 
D was filed by the Plaintiff. 
E 
F 
The Appellant contended that the first appellate court erred in 
concluding; that the mutation entry in favour of 'I' could convey valid title 
to her, which she could consequently convey to defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It 
ought to have considered the Will executed by K in favour of the plaintiff 
and R, and. the succession certificate issued by the civil court on that basis 
under the Indian Succession Act. It was also contended that the first 
appellate <:ourt could not revc!rse the decree of the Trial Judge without 
setting aside the finding of fad of the Trial Judge that the Plaintiff and R 
were the two daughters of G. It was also contended that the High Court 
committed an error of law in dismissing the Appeal in limine. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The judgment of the lower appellate court reversing the 
decree of t.he trial judge, without setting aside the finding of fact of the 
G Trial Judge that R was the second daughter of G, and the judgment of the 
High Court dismissing the second appeal in limine, are unsustainable in 
law. [170-C-E; 171-F] 
1.2. The first appellate court has erred in concluding that 'I' had a 
valid title :in the property of G, without coming to a positive finding that 
H 'I' and not R was the second daughter of G,

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