Case: Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Nikka Singh

2. The subject matter of the appeal is land measuring 9 canals and 2 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 292 and 296 in mauza Kot Syed Mahmuds, in the District of Amritsar; the previous corresponding Khasra Nos. of the land were 324 and 328. This land formed part of a larger area which originally belonged to a number of co-sharers, including Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh. There was a partition among the said co-shares and pursuant to that partition on 20th April 1929 an application was filed before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of the names in accordance with the terms of the partition; and the petition was signed by all the co-sharers including Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh. It was stated in the petition, marked as Ex. D 6 in the case, that in respect of the Khasra numbers one share should be entered in the name of Teja Singh and 7 shares in the name of Jhandha Singh. This fact is not admitted. But in the mutation that was effected on 26th August 1929, the entire extent of the said khasra numbers was shown against Teja Singh alone. The mutation number was 960. On 10th August 1934, Jhandha Singh, discovering the mistake committed is the revenue record, applied to the Revenue Authorities for correcting the said mistake. The Revenue Authorities enquired into the matter from 10th August 1934 to 31st October 1935. The record of that enquiry discloses that Mula Singh the brother of Teja Singh -- Teja Singh died and Mula Singh was his heir admitted the mistake made in the revenue record before the concerned authorities. That apart they had before them a report of the enquiry made by a subordinate officer of the revenue department tracing the history of the said Khasra numbers and also giving the relevant facts namely, the partition between the co-sharers and the joint application filed by them for mutation of their names in respect of the plots allotted to each one of them. On the material so placed before them the Revenue Authorities corrected the mistake, and against mutation No. 1490 the correct shares of Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh namely, 1/8 and 7/8 respectively were given. on 24th October 1934. i.e., after Jhandha Singh had filed the application for correcting the mutation No.960, Mula Singh executed a sale deed conveying the said land bearing Khasra Nos. 324 and 328 in favour of Gurbaksh Singh, the appellant, i.e. on the very date when the Mula Sing had to appear before the Revenue Authorities. The appellant obtained a security bond from Mula Singh to indemnify him against any loss that might be caused to him in respect of the said property he also paid the bulk of the consideration only on 22nd October 1937 i.e. after three years of the sale deed. Jhandha Singh, in his turn sold his 7/8 share in the said khasra numbers, along with others, to Gopal Singh from whom Nikka Singh, the first respondent purchased the said share by a sale deed dated 27th October 1936. the appellant filed a suit under S. 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 out of which the present appeal arises, in the revenue Court for a declaration of his exclusive title to the said two Khasra numbers, and in that suit Nikka Singh the first respondent, and Mula Singh the second respondent, were the defendants. The suit has had a checkered career and it is not necessary to trace it. It would be enough if we start with the decision of the Subordinate Judge aged 14th February 1949 to whose file the suit was transferred from the file of the revenue court by the District Judge after it was remanded by the High Court on an earlier occasion. The learned Subordinate Judge expressed his opinion on the relevant issuefar as the land in suit is concerned Mula Singh had sold it to the plaintiff on 24th October 1934 and any admission by him made on 10th August 1936 would not affect the plaintiff. Under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Act a mutation can be based either on facts proved or admitted. No facts had been proved before the officer who attested mutation No. 1490 and Mula Singh was nobody to admit any facts in relation to land which he had sold two years before to the plaintiff. The mutation entry 1490 was therefore not properly made and I decide issue No. 11 accordingly.It will be seen from the aforesaid observations that the learned Subordinate Judge based his finding on the assumption that the admission of Mula Singh could not bind the appellant who purchased his property before the said admission and that there was no other evidence before the Revenue Authorities to make the mutation entry No.1490. On appeal the learned District Judge though he made certain observations indicating his line of thought did not give any definite finding on the question of title, but he dismissed the appeal on the finding that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser in good faith. The first respondent preferred a second appeal to the High Court. The High Court held that the correction of earlier mutation No. 960 was made with the consent of both the parties and there is a presumption attached to the correctness of the later mutation and that the appellant was fully cognizant of the real state of affairs, namely that Mula Singh had only 1/8 shares in the said khasra numbers. On those findings, the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was set aside and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs throughout. Hence the appeal.

Court's reasoning:
5. It is true that as early as 1931 the Privy Council held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous findings of fact however gross the error may seem to be, and the said ruling has since been followed by all the courts in India and accepted by this Court in a number of decisions. But in this case the learned District Judge has not given any finding on the question of title, but contended himself to dispose of the appeal on the ground that the appellant purchased the land in good faith from Mula Singh. The question of title was, therefore, left open and the High Court was certainly within its right in giving its own finding thereon.6. The finding given by the learned District Judge that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser in good faith was not based on the evidence in the case, but was merely an ipse dixit. Nor did the District Judge consider the impact of the provisions of S. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act on the facts of the case. Such a finding arrived at without evidence and without applying the correct principles of law cannot obviously bind the High Court.The general rule is that a person cannot confer a better title than he has. This section is an exception to that rule. Being an exception the onus certainly is on the transferee to show that the transferor was the ostensible owner of the property and that he had after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, acted in good faith. In this case the facts are tell tale and they establish beyond doubt that the appellant had the knowledge that the tilde of his transferor was in dispute and he had taken a risk in purchasing the same. The appellant and Mula Singh belong to the same village Kot Syed Mahmud. Mula Singh sold his property to the appellant on the very date on which he had to appear before the Revenue Authorities. Though the sale deed was executed on October 24, 1934 the consideration was actually paid only three years thereafter i.e. on October 22, 1937. The appellant also took a security bond from Mula Singh to indemnify himself against any loss that might be caused to him in the property in dispute. These facts show that the appellant had knowledge of the defect in the title of Mulla Singh. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that he had purchased it in good faith. The High Court, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, held that the appellant knew that the transaction was in respect of a property of which the title was extremely doubtful. There are no permissible grounds for challenging the correctness of that finding before us in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.8. Nor do we see any merits in the contention that no presumption can be drawn in favour of the correctness of the impugned entry in the revenue record on the ground that the conditions given in the section are notwere the following pieces of evidence before Revenue Authorities, among others : (1) evidence of Mula Singh; (2) the report of the Subordinate Revenue Officer with all the connected annexures, including Ex. D-6 wherein the terms of the partition were recited. On the said evidence the Revenue Authorities corrected the entry in the record in the manner they did. It must therefore, be held that the provisions of S. 37 (a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act were satisfied. If so, there is a presumption that the later entry was correct. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the said presumption.