1997 (7) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mutation and gift deeds.
2. Possession and title of Durga Devi under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. Application of res judicata from prior proceedings.
4. Abatement of appeal due to the death of one appellant.
5. Legal implications of mutation entries on title and possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Mutation and Gift Deeds:
The original owner, Khushal Singh, died issueless, and the land was mutated in favor of his widow, Durga Devi, who then purportedly adopted two minors and mutated the land in their favor under Mutation No. 1311. The trial court found that the adoption was not proved, and the mutation did not bind the reversionary rights of the plaintiff after Durga Devi's death. Durga Devi later executed gift deeds in favor of the appellants, which were contested. The trial court held that the alienation by way of mutation and gift by Durga Devi would not bind the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs after her death. The appellate court and the High Court upheld this view, stating that Durga Devi was divested of her title and possession by Mutation No. 1311.

2. Possession and Title of Durga Devi under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The High Court considered whether Durga Devi was in possession of the land when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and found that she was not. The Supreme Court, however, held that mutation entries do not create or extinguish title nor have any presumptive value on title. Therefore, Durga Devi was not divested of her title by Mutation No. 1311 and continued to possess the land. Consequently, she became the absolute owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and had the right to execute the gift deeds.

3. Application of Res Judicata from Prior Proceedings:
The earlier suit sought a declaration that the mutation of the gift deed would not affect the reversionary rights after Durga Devi's death. The Supreme Court held that since mutation entries do not convey or extinguish title, the earlier proceedings did not affect Durga Devi's title. Thus, the principle of res judicata did not apply to bar the current suit.

4. Abatement of Appeal Due to the Death of One Appellant:
The appellants filed applications to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record. The Supreme Court found that the appeal stands abated only concerning the properties given to the deceased-Makan Singh under the gift deed dated 9.9.70, as the decree is divisible among several reversioners against several independent donees.

5. Legal Implications of Mutation Entries on Title and Possession:
The Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title and are relevant only for land revenue purposes. Therefore, Mutation No. 1311 did not divest Durga Devi of her title or possession. The trial court erred in treating the mutation as a gift that conveyed title. Consequently, Durga Devi's possession and title remained intact, and she became the absolute owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals except for the properties gifted to Makan Singh. The erroneous conclusions of the lower courts regarding mutation and possession were set aside. The alienations made by Durga Devi were upheld as valid, given her absolute ownership under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There was no order as to costs.