Case: Gurdit Singh And Others Vs. State Of Punjab And Others

1963, as he gave no opportunity to appellants 2 and 3 of being heard. The fact that the first appellant was heard before that order was passed is of no moment because the persons who were vitally concerned in re-opening the case were appellants 2 and 3. Admittedly, no notice of the proceedings to re-open the case was given to them. It is not for us to speculate what defences were available to them and whether the defences available would have materially affected the destiny of the decision. We do not think it necessary to decide in this case whether the failure to observe the rule audi alteram partem would per se vitiate an order or whether it is also necessary to show prejudice to the person affected resulting from the failure to observe the rule. Suffice it to say that in the present case we are of the view that if notice had been given to appellants 2 and 3, they could, at any rate, have shown the true nature and character of the judgment of the civil court upon which they relied.8. It is relevant to note that the judgment itself was not challenged as collusive by the respondents. We are quite aware that the defendant in the suit in which the judgment was obtained, namely, the first appellant, did not put forward any contention. But it would be rash to jump to the conclusion from the mere fact that no defence was put forward by the first appellant in the suit that the decree was obtained collusively. Under Section 43 of the Evidence Act a person who is not a party to a judgment can show that it was obtained by fraud or collusion. No such attempt was made in this case.9. Nor are we satisfied that every judgment which has the apparent effect of diminishing the area of land of a person would be within the ambit of S.32-DD (b). Generally speaking, a judgment adjudicates on the rights of the parties as they existed before the suit in which it was obtained.10. A judgment is an affirmation of a relation between a particular predicate and a particular subject. So, in law, it is the affirmation by the law of the legal consequences attending a proved or admitted state of facts. It is always a declaration that a liability, recognised as within the jural sphere, does or does not exist. A judgment, as the culmination of the action, declares the existence of the right, recognizes the commission of the injury, or negatives the allegation of one or the other".11. A judgment of a court is an affirmation, by the authorized societal agent of the state, speaking by warrant of law and in the name of the state, of the legal consequences attending a proved or admitted state of facts. Its declaratory, determinative and adjudicatory function isits distinctive characteristic. Its recording gives an official certification to a pre-existing relation establishes a new one on pre-existing grounds**.*see Black on Judgments, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp.1-2.**see Borchard, "Declaratory Judgments" 2nd ed, pp.8-1012. The judgment of the civil Court with which we are concerned, adjudicated on the rights of the parties as they existed before the suit and when it declared that the mutation was effected not with the idea of transferring the property to the first appellant but for some other reason, the effect of the declaration was that there was no real transfer of the property in favour of the first appellant and that the property remained always in the ownership of appellants 2 and 3, notwithstanding the purported transfer evidenced by the mutation in the revenue records. It is impermissible to give the wide language employed in clause (b) of Section 32-DD an unconfined operation. When a transfer or mutation is made on account of fraud or mistake and if a suit is filed for a declaration that the transfer or mutation was made on account of fraud or mistake and a judgment obtained, certainly the judgment would not have the effect of diminishing the area of a person which could have been declared as a surplus area within the meaning of Section 32-DD. The legal effect of such a declaration would be that the transferee or the person in whose name the mutation was effected had no right in the property. The land must have belonged to the first appellant prior to the judgment in order that it might be postulated that the judgment has the effect of diminishing the total area in his hands. To put it differently, prior to the judgment, the land must have belonged to him in order that it may be said that the effect of the judgment is to dimisgh the area of his holding. If the effect of the judgment is only to declare that the land never belonged to the first appellant, it has not the effect of diminishing area of land in his possession. We are aware that the object of this provision in an Act like the one under consideration is to prevent circumvention of its provisions by dubious and indirect methods. But that is no reason why we should put a construction upon the section which its language can hardly bear. It would have been open to the respondents to allege and prove that the judgment was obtained collusively. But that could have been done only after notice to appellants 2 and 3 and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, to say, as the High Court has said, that no prejudice was caused to appellants 2 and 3 for want of an opportunity to them of being heard, is neither here nor there. We think the High Court went wrong in assuming that the Collector was right when he ignored the judgment by his order dated May 20, 1963 on the ground that it had the effect of diminishing the area of the first appellant which could have been declared as his surplus.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. We are not satisfied that this is a correct approach to the question. The Collector purported to act under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Code, which, obviously has no application. The High Court did not rest its decision on S.15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Code for holding that Collector had jurisdiction to pass the order dated May 20, 1963. When the Collector passed the order dated March 28, 1961 determining the surplus area in the hands of the first appellant, he took into consideration the effect of the judgment of the civil court declaring that the mutation of the name of the first appellant in the revenue record was effected only to enable him to obtain a gun licence. That order of the Collector dated March 28, 1961 was a perfectly valid one when it was passed. No one challenged that order and it became final for all purposes.We are also not satisfied that the Collector was acting in consonance with the principles of natural justice when he passed the order dated May 20, 1963, as he gave no opportunity to appellants 2 and 3 of being heard. The fact that the first appellant was heard before that order was passed is of no moment because the persons who were vitally concerned in re-opening the case were appellants 2 and 3. Admittedly, no notice of the proceedings to re-open the case was given to them. It is not for us to speculate what defences were available to them and whether the defences available would have materially affected the destiny of the decision. We do not think it necessary to decide in this case whether the failure to observe the rule audi alteram partem would per se vitiate an order or whether it is also necessary to show prejudice to the person affected resulting from the failure to observe the rule. Suffice it to say that in the present case we are of the view that if notice had been given to appellants 2 and 3, they could, at any rate, have shown the true nature and character of the judgment of the civil court upon which they relied.The judgment of the civil Court with which we are concerned, adjudicated on the rights of the parties as they existed before the suit and when it declared that the mutation was effected not with the idea of transferring the property to the first appellant but for some other reason, the effect of the declaration was that there was no real transfer of the property in favour of the first appellant and that the property remained always in the ownership of appellants 2 and 3, notwithstanding the purported transfer evidenced by the mutation in the revenue records. It is impermissible to give the wide language employed in clause (b) of Section 32-DD an unconfined operation. When a transfer or mutation is made on account of fraud or mistake and if a suit is filed for a declaration that the transfer or mutation was made on account of fraud or mistake and a judgment obtained, certainly the judgment would not have the effect of diminishing the area of a person which could have been declared as a surplus area within the meaning of Section 32-DD. The legal effect of such a declaration would be that the transferee or the person in whose name the mutation was effected had no right in the property. The land must have belonged to the first appellant prior to the judgment in order that it might be postulated that the judgment has the effect of diminishing the total area in his hands. To put it differently, prior to the judgment, the land must have belonged to him in order that it may be said that the effect of the judgment is to dimisgh the area of his holding. If the effect of the judgment is only to declare that the land never belonged to the first appellant, it has not the effect of diminishing area of land in his possession. We are aware that the object of this provision in an Act like the one under consideration is to prevent circumvention of its provisions by dubious and indirect methods. But that is no reason why we should put a construction upon the section which its language can hardly bear. It would have been open to the respondents to allege and prove that the judgment was obtained collusively. But that could have been done only after notice to appellants 2 and 3 and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, to say, as the High Court has said, that no prejudice was caused to appellants 2 and 3 for want of an opportunity to them of being heard, is neither here nor there. We think the High Court went wrong in assuming that the Collector was right when he ignored the judgment by his order dated May 20, 1963 on the ground that it had the effect of diminishing the area of the first appellant which could have been declared as his surplus.It is relevant to note that the judgment itself was not challenged as collusive by the respondents. We are quite aware that the defendant in the suit in which the judgment was obtained, namely, the first appellant, did not put forward any contention. But it would be rash to jump to the conclusion from the mere fact that no defence was put forward by the first appellant in the suit that the decree was obtained collusively. Under Section 43 of the Evidence Act a person who is not a party to a judgment can show that it was obtained by fraud or collusion. No such attempt was made in this case.9. Nor are we satisfied that every judgment which has the apparent effect of diminishing the area of land of a person would be within the ambit of(b). Generally speaking, a judgment adjudicates on the rights of the parties as they existed before the suit in which it was obtained.