Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus RAM RAKHA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 6 February 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1022 · 1997 INSC 117
- Also cited as
- (1997) 10 SCC 172
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Application for substitution and appointment of legal guardian is ordered.
p. 1022, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, made on May 7, 1980 in RSA No. 802/80 cpnfirming the judgment of the District Court dated November 7, 1979.
p. 1022, margin F
The admitted position is that one Gobind Mal, father of the respondents, had possessory mortgage from the holders of the suit land in the year 1887-88. When the land was declared as an evacuee property under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, the Union of India claimed the land belonged to them. The respondents filed a civil suit for a declaration that after the expiry of the period of 60 years from the date of the mortgage, they have become absolute owners as the mortgage became irredeemable and as a consequence they are the owner of the property. Though the trial Court has dismissed the suit, on appeal, it was reversed and decree was granted. The High Court in the second appeal confirmed it by dismissing in limi11e. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
pp. 1022–1023, margin G
From the evidence on record, it is seen that mutation entries have been effected to show that the respondents were in possession of the property as mortgagees through the tenants. That evidence was corroborated by DW-2, Kanugo and the mutation order DW-2/1. The District Court also relied upon Jambandi for the year 1887-88. Under those circumstances, the mutation in regard to year 1896-97 is only referable to the earlier mortgage of 1886-87. As a consequence, by the time the Act has come into force, the land became irredeemable by the original mortgagor. Resultantly, they had lost title to the typothica. The title to the land was rightly declared to belong to the respondents and it cannot be declared to be a evacuee property nor the Government can claim interest in the land as evacuee property. The decree granted by the District Judge, thqefore, is according to law and needs no interference.
p. 1023, margin B
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 1023, margin E