SURAJ BHAN AND ORS. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 16-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
.i 
SURAJ BHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
Succession-Agricultural /and-Mutation of land in the names of 
children of the deceased owner-Share of married daughters-Execution of 
Will by deceased married daughter in favour of legal heir-Genuineness of 
'Wi//'--Challenge to--Dismissed by Civil Court-Appeal against the order 
A 
B 
c 
of dismissal pending in the High Court-Held: Validity and genuineness of D 
'Will" could only be decided by a competent Civil Court-A suit on such 
ground was already filed and dismissed by the Civil Court-Appeal filed 
there-against is pending in High Court-The question will be decided by the 
High Court-Mutation has been effected in favour of legal heir in the revenue 
records by the concerned authority on the basis of the Will executed by the E 
deceased married daughter of the land owner-The said order was affirmed 
by the Collector, Financial Commissioner and also by the High Court-No 
infirmity is found. 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136: 
Jurisdiction under-Exercise of-Held: Entry in Revenue records does 
not confer title on a person whose name appears in records of right-Such 
an entry has only fiscal purpose/payment of Revenue and no ownership could 
be conferred on the basis of such entry/entries-Hence, no reason is found 
to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction 
F 
under Article 136 by the Supreme Court. 
G 
Appellants as also respondent No.5 are the descendants from the 
C(jmmon ancestor, who was the owner of the agricultural land, he died in the 
year 1948. He was survived by six sons and two daughters from two wives. 
After his deatf>, the land in question was mutated in the names of his eight 
155 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 5 S.C.R. 
children and each of them was given 1/8th share. In 1987, his two sons 
instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction averring therein 
that two daughters of the deceased had no right in the land and they could not 
have inherited any share in the land since they were already married. The 
suit was ultimately compromised. Names of the appellants were added as legal 
h.:irs from one ofihe daughters of the deceased who died in the year 1989. It 
is alleged by the appellants that respondent No.5 forged a Will purported to 
have been executed by the deceased daughter before her death stating therein 
that she was the full and absolute owner of 1/8th share which she inherited 
from her deceased father and that she had given the said share to respondent 
No.5 who was her step-brother's son. On the basis of the said Will, respondent 
No.5 applied to Tehsildar under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 to mutate 
the land said to have been inherited by the deceased in the name of respondent 
No.5 and to enter his name in the Revenue records. No notice was given to 
the appellants nor principles of natural justice were complied with and 
Tehsildar entered the name of respondent No. 5 in Revenue records by 
effocting mutation in the name of respondent No.5 in Khatauni. As soon as 
the appellants came to know about the fact of mutation entry in Revenue 
records in favour of respondent No.5, they preferred an appeal to Collector. 
The appeal was dismissed by the authority. A further appeal before the 
Financial Commissioner, Delhi was also dismissed. A Writ petition to the 
High Court of Delhi was filed by the appellants, which was also dismissed. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants also alleged that in 1997-98, certain lands were acquired by 
the Government undn th.e Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was 
passed for Rs.3,60,00,000/-. Being heirs of the deceased, the appellants made 
an application under Sections 29-31 of the Act asserting that they were the 
F real heirs of deceased and were entitled to compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs, being 
the share of the deceased and substantial amount of Rs. 45 lacs had been paid 
to respondent No. 5 on March 23, 1998. The said action was also challenged 
in the present appeal as illegal and unlawful. 
Appellants further alleged that on April 22, 1998 they had instituted a 
G suit challenging validity and genuineness of the Will alleged to have been 
executed by the deceased daughter in favour of respondent No.5. The 
appellants, however, came to know that the Advocate who was engaged by the 
appellants an

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