Case: Gurbachan Singh And Others Vs. Puran Singh And Others

by the exercise of undue influence or coercion or fraud and that the land had not been proved to be ancestral. An appeal was taken against this decree to the District Judge who held that out of 66 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in dispute an area of 28 Kanals, 3 Marlas was ancestral as it was held by Himmat Singh, father of Mehtab Singh the common ancestor. The District Judge also held that Mehtab Singh had predeceased Himmat Singh but of this there seems to be no proof. On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the District Judge and restored that of the trial Court and the appellant have come in appeal to this Court by special leave.3. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether 28 Kanals, 3 Marlas out of the land in suit by the appellants is proved to be ancestral qua them. Out of the land claimed 20 Kanals, 19 Marlas described in Para A-2 had been proved to have been acquired by Mangal Singh by pre-emption and another portion was his self-acquired mortgagee land. Therefore the dispute was confined to certain Khasra numbers which had fallen to the share of the testator in consolidation proceedings in lieu of his share in land held by him. The excerpt P. W. 6/1 prepared by the Special Kanungo shows that some of those Khasra numbers were traced to the possession of Himmat Singh s/o. Milkhi in 1849 and some Khasra numbers were traced to the possession of Himmat Singh and others and the remaining were traced to strangers. The District Judge held that only the land which was held in 1849 by Himmat Singh could be ancestral qua the plaintiffs and, therefore, decreed the suit in regard to that portion which was 28 Kanals and 3 Marlas and that is the area of the land which is now in dispute.4. In order to come to this conclusion the learned District Judge in an elaborate judgment has traced the history of each Khasra number and decreed only those Khasras which were held by Himmat Singh. The High Court did not accept this finding but, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in interfering with that finding. At the first regular settlement the land decreed was held by. Himmat Singh and the revenue pedigree shows that in 1885 the three branches descending from Himmat Singh, i.e., Gulab Singh who was alive, sons of Mehtab Singh and Leekar son of Fattu held khewat Nos. 34, 35 and 36 which were equal in area and each branch was paying land revenue of Rs. 13/-. The excerpt Ex. P. W. 6/1 prepared by the Kanungo further shows that the land held by the sons of Mehtab Singh, i.e., Khata No. 34 was held by them jointly and in equal shares. On these facts the finding in regard to the land decreed was held to be ancestral.5. It was argues on behalf of the respondents that the land was not ancestral and that it cannot be ancestral unless it was shown that it was held by the common ancestor, i.e., Mehtab Singh and as there was no revenue by entry showing the land to have been held by him the land could not be said to be ancestral. Support for this was sought from a judgment of the Privy Council in Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh, 35 Ind App 206 (211) were Lord Collins observed as follows :-"It is through their father, as heir of the above-named Dhanna Singh that the plaintiffs claimed and unless the lands came to Dhanna Singh by descent from a lineal male ancestor in the male line through whom the plaintiffs also in like manner claimed, they are not deemed ancestral in Hindu law."But this does not support the submission of counsel for the respondents. It is true that in the present case the land was held by a remote ancestor and not by the immediate common ancestor but the history of the land which has been referred to above clearly shows the ancestral nature of the land in the hand of the descendants, the parties to the present appeal. It, therefore, is ancestral. The contention of the respondents does not find support from decided cases and it is an erroneous view to take that merely because the possession by the common ancestor itself is not shown in the revenue records but that of a more remote direct ancestor is, it is non-ancestral even though the history of the land gives no indication of its acquisition by the descendants except by inheritance.6. It was then argued that as the land claimed had been consolidated and both ancestral and non-ancestral land had got mixed up it cannot be said as to what portion is ancestral and what is non-ancestral. This again is not a correct approach to the question. Where land has been consolidated and in lieu of ancestral lands and non-ancestral land a consolidated area is given to a proprietor then such of the portion of the consolidated area which corresponds to the area of land which was ancestral will be ancestral land. It was so held in Haveldar Mihan Singh v. Piara Singh, 48 Pun LR 536 which is a decision of Abdul Rashid and Mehr Chand Mahajan JJ. (as they then were). The same view has taken in a later judgment of the East Punjab High Court in Gurdev Singh v. Dasaundhi, AIR 1948 EP 22 (25), where it was observed :"However, where the ancestral portion of the land so given or thrown was by no means negligible and bore a definite proportion to the whole of the land there can be no difficulty in apportioning the land acquired according to the areas of the two classes of such land, namely, ancestral and non-ancestral."7. The District Judge in our view rightly held that 28 Kanals and 3 Marlas were ancestral and he has rightly decreed the suit qua that portion.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]4. In order to come to this conclusion the learned District Judge in an elaborate judgment has traced the history of each Khasra number and decreed only those Khasras which were held by Himmat Singh. The High Court did not accept this finding but, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in interfering with that finding. At the first regular settlement the land decreed was held by. Himmat Singh and the revenue pedigree shows that in 1885 the three branches descending from Himmat Singh, i.e., Gulab Singh who was alive, sons of Mehtab Singh and Leekar son of Fattu held khewat Nos. 34, 35 and 36 which were equal in area and each branch was paying land revenue of Rs. 13/-. The excerpt Ex. P. W. 6/1 prepared by the Kanungo further shows that the land held by the sons of Mehtab Singh, i.e., Khata No. 34 was held by them jointly and in equal shares. On these facts the finding in regard to the land decreed was held to bethis does not support the submission of counsel for the respondents. It is true that in the present case the land was held by a remote ancestor and not by the immediate common ancestor but the history of the land which has been referred to above clearly shows the ancestral nature of the land in the hand of the descendants, the parties to the present appeal. It, therefore, is ancestral. The contention of the respondents does not find support from decided cases and it is an erroneous view to take that merely because the possession by the common ancestor itself is not shown in the revenue records but that of a more remote direct ancestor is, it is non-ancestral even though the history of the land gives no indication of its acquisition by the descendants except byagain is not a correct approach to the question. Where land has been consolidated and in lieu of ancestral lands and non-ancestral land a consolidated area is given to a proprietor then such of the portion of the consolidated area which corresponds to the area of land which was ancestral will be ancestral land.The District Judge in our view rightly held that 28 Kanals and 3 Marlas were ancestral and he has rightly decreed the suit qua that portion.