High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1503/1992allowed

Gurdial Singh And ANR. v. Raja Nariender Singh And ORS.

2022-10-29Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan26 pages

!"!#$!%&'

#&(&)!%&'

(#%*+,*&-. "*&)!%!)!+"!% /.#(-.0 "+&%+&/.!# 11!,,+&/"

2!#"("

+3++#*&%!#*&-.+&%/.!#"

!"1&%!&/"

'4 50 26

!" #$% &'

"#$%# ( !"#$%

))!! # "#$%

)# ******** 267 +

))! )# %

# ##, # -

# ,,&" # %# ))!! !!#) % %& . &

/).

!0&+ , ,") # 1&

. )# # ))!!% & ) )).2 ! %&%# !#.3& # 4& )#%. ))!", %!!&))!

% !

!# $% . &# ))!! $ #) # % %& ." $" 5" %# ))!! $)#&%#%# % ) ##)

%& .,&# #))!

% ## &%&& 489844 8

))!

!# 1. ))!! !#

## !$ #%)#&%%# ) # 6)"

"$ ####7 - " ##1 # , % 8# %&! ))!! &# #)$ ))!

!#1. 6)!

" &,1

#/ 1 %#" " ))!!

&,1 ,) )!

6, #

## &,1 ,) !#### - -96%&#1.

8# %&! ))!! )!%#%# )##5 7"&1, #1. :# #;

) <6)"%%#

" ) # # )&# &,1 ,) )!

# %! ## &,1 ,)

! )"%). #!## !)!%# %# 8# %&! ))!! # '&# , :=1! &), 0& ##

&1, 0& ) %,) # )&#

#, #

&% %%!& 8# %&! # &,1 ,)

1 !0&&1, # % %&! &"

## &,1 ,) " , .&#

+)!."!#%&! )# &1, # ## !$ #% ))!! &!#1!! # , )#&%#!

& )# #& )#%.

))!1 ! ))!!0& !#%&! ) "+, $ &

# )&# ## !$ #%%1!! # .))!! #) , !." ))### !$ #%% ) :# # ;

) <6) &,1

& #!!.

## &,1 ,)

# ! ##" $"

% # % & &# . #) # 1&5 . )#"+##, ))) !! ))!

% > !### !$ #%2 " ))!

% 1 #$%$$ # , # +*&11!+, !!

))! !

# '&# ,##% ##- -

")#1. !0&"$ #

!#1. )#/)!

#%# !! # '&# , ##%##

")#1. ! ))!!0&" 1.

))!

!#1. ))!!/# # # , # ;, )!# ) " % &# )&# % , "

Rattan Singh, whose estate is under dispute, performed marriage to one Naurati and out of this wedlock, appellant/defendant No. 2 Jagir Kaur was born, who was married to appellant/defendant No. 1

5 Gurdial Singh. After the death of Naurati, Rattan Singh performed second marriage with one Gurdev Kaur.

24.11.1971 Vide a gift deed, Gurdial Singh transferred half share of agricultural land measuring 98 Bigha and 7 Biswa in favour of Gurdev Kaur i.e 49 Bigha 3 Biswa and mutation No. 4297 dated 24.03.1972 was sanctioned.

22.05.1977 Gurdev Kaur died.

FIR No. 82 dated 22.05.1977 was registered against Gurdial Singh/defendant No. 1 under Sections 302, 120-B of the IPC alleging murder of Gurdev Kaur and Rattan Singh was cited as a witness but he never appeared in Court to support the prosecution case. 13.08.1977 The disputed Trust was created by Rattan Singh, at the instance of the MLA Raja Narinder Singh, plaintiff No. 1.

31.03.1978 Gurdial Singh was acquitted in the FIR case after full length trial and the judgment of acquittal attained finality.

31.07.1978 Vide mutation No. 4873, sanctioned by Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ludhiana, by passing a detailed order, qua the estate of Gurdev Kaur transferred land in favour of Rattan Singh and Jagir Kaur in equal share. This order has also attained finality.

1970-1982 As per revenue record, defendants are in continuous possession.

15.12.1981 Jagir Kaur filed a suit bearing No. 228/1981 for declaration against Rattan Singh that she be declared owner in possession of land measuring 49 Bigha 5 Biswas. This suit was instituted through Sh. Kamaljit Singh Gill, Advocate (Ex. DW-2). Rattan Singh appeared and filed written statement through Sh. Harnek Singh, Advocate (Ex. DW-3/2) admitting the claim of Jagir Kaur.

15.12.1981 On the basis of admission statement of Rattan Singh, the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ludhiana passed the judgment decreeing the suit. Para 3 of this judgment reads as under:

"On notice of the Court, the defendant appeared and filed written statement in which he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the defendant has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant is the father of the plaintiff in this case and as the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff even in his statement made in the Court on 09.12.1981, the suit of the plaintiff as admitted by the defendant is decreed. A decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and the file be consigned to the Record Room. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9 Announced.

Sd/- 15.12.1981 Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana."

The aforesaid judgment was followed by a decree dated 15.12.1981 Ex. D-3 observing that the suit of the plaintiff, as admitted by the defendant, is decreed.

). )!

2& )!

92&# ) 7?

!#"

#1.

# '&# ,##%## 7)# % $ !

& 7 $& # #@

(& !

1!1 #"

$ 1 )%&# 1. &# # , ) # & ,

##6%&#1.# # $& # #

#51!#%!#&!!#$ #) &# )!

" # 2& %#) ) #%# 2& ,#). ,2 %# &#> )!

$# #%#$

# :>

#$%

%&!2

# &# !. )!

(& !.#&

#A&#$(&"

" ## # +)9 )!

" # # # $> % 1! ) !# )%&, '&# , # #% ## 7#" " ) A&# !

!! ! ))!!/# # %# & 1.

,2 %&,

## $&A&#$(&

- # )&#" $" # # A&#$(& ,&##!! # 1. )!

+ !# # )!

$%#.

2& # )).#

.2&4#" , , % "

%#%&! # #+ & # '&# , # #% ## 7 )# 1. &1@&# "8&#

! !#$!

#+ & # )!

# :>

"#$%

%&!#

!# ,#))# 0&+)-

," )%

%!!.# # )!

2& $ ) !# # )&" " %%

# #> % 1!) , )!

!# #5?>" , )). ,

#"!&))# % # #### !! #2&4#$%, > !# ?>+ )%

%!!.#1.# #5?> ,& $ % # $& )!

1 2&4## &)$

% $&%#" ?>%# ,)!,

& ! - "

/ +)- ,"

!#1.# #5 ?>"

# # )!

$%, ) )).## # ##" &

, # ) !#))!

!#1. )!

&1, ,# )!

# !0& ,# !! & B & , 1!!! # )!

, .1'% # C4

7 B & 1# ' # %.

) C4

B & 1#1. ) % )! '&# %C4 5 B & ))!. $!&# )&) 0& #'& # % C4 B & )). #%!# 2& )).$ #$!

#2&4### -- , )!

9C 9 B )!

2& 2& , )!

9C - B #%## 7)#1. ? 0A&)"@+0"8&#

!! !"

% $# 1 # )!

!! # )

C 7 B ,

%#1.# #

$& # # #5 !! !"$ #"

1 . &% # #1 # )!

!! # ) )!

+ &7 )$#

, $" # # 5 1

# ,

% # & % 2&C45 B )!

!# #%! ).# C B )!

!# ) & )).).# C

+$ #%" )!

)#&%#

!2&4#

A&#$(&, !2&"1 <6/# %

#%). <6)%!&5

2&4#" 2&

$ ) !! ), /1& !# % ##&

, !! %!& %, 2&

!!1&# ?1'.!

( !:

% !"1 2 )#&%#<6#<6 # ,)& # '&# ,<65 $&%#

! )#&%#! %). ;+<6B7

! 2& 4# A&#$ (& , ! 2&"

1 )#&%#<6/# %

#%).<6# , )$#1.B >(&,"

0!>

% &1

"1 &>

"#$%#0 4 2& 4# ## -- # B &))# 6%& 2&4#1.

#1. 2&B > (&," ## "!)$# # 2&4#1.)#&%

!))##&))# 6%& 2&4# # #" $ #%")#&%# $&%#

# "<64<645" . - 7/ 7 ,,# !. )

& " !!

,)& ##%<64 # # $&

,& 57- <6492 %). )!

)$ & & 7## 7 )#&%#4B1.6, 4B (,!'

A !!"#$% , !!.":>

"#$%)$#

,<64B5"

&,1,>#1.

2 ))!!A&# !

))#4B2 "

! 0&#%# & # ))!

!#1 ! ))!!0& # , # 8# %&! ))!! ,#

!! &1 !3& ! B &13&& " 0&%6, $!

# . )!# ,# )$ &&

$ !

, #%))# &!

00C B , % #$%)%

%#)) )!

## # #)#!.%1 &# # #%" #

% # #,> #, # )&C

B , % # # )$ && ") ," %#% , !

!&#%

+0 !! #1.

%3& !

1. 0&%1% %&,% # #%)#

$&C 5 B % ,& 1. 0&

!! # 1. %) # %% $& %# ,& > !# )!

C B 1% ,#%# 2&4#"1 %,)!

# 1.)!

9" 1%,6 , % --% 2&%")% !!.

2&)).

$#&! ,#C 9 B 1% ) "$

$ 2&"%&) &% %&,% ,#))#%&,#$%#&)C 8# %&! ))!! &# 1

0& 1! $ ))!

# '&# ! , # )!# ) 8# %&! #)- )!

&1, # 2& %#" )

##$# # # $> % 1!) !# # )&)

& + & &1, # %,!. $ #%1&!)$&%#)#&%#1. 1 ) ,&% ) % 2&" ))!! , # ) ))." " !$, 1 ,# )- )!

8# %&! & # ,

!#1. ?> &

! " ?>/# #5 )%## " # .,&

2& % # $&%# ) !%# $& )!

8# %&! & &1, # # $

% #1. ?>) % ! $&

(&/# #1.6%& ,)!,

!% )

& " % )

) $&%# .. 2&4# $&%##1 0&1! $

,) )% % 8# %&! 6 &# 1 0& 1! $ %# % # )!

! A&#$(& %>#1.A&# !

# 1& $#

" A&#$(&# #+ & &1, #

))# % , ! !" A&# !

%3& #.$ #%!

>8 1&

#. '&.+ & &1, # !.

"$ )%"

$))#

&)) )!

# ,) % $! 1

#1.1 0&1! 8# %&! 6 &# 1 0& 1! "

! # ,)& ##%" $$!!#1.# %) # &! 00+ &1, # % %&,%

$1>1. 0&1! # ,)& ##% )# % $ !& 7D;

!. %%!., # )$ && <64B/ @

(& !.#&

#A&#$(&" #&

D%#!. 1 %&! )!

!! # # #& " @

(&)!

# #" )% ,

% #$%#

&) &% %&,%D2

#!. % #& &# # , !! #!.

!#1.

> !#

8# %&! !#

# 0&1! D;

!. &# # )&#. @

(& !.#&

" $" 0&1!

$ !. )# !! # !.#&

#A&#$(& , &

!#"

A&#$(& #!#.# # 8# %&! & &# $ "

1$ 0&1! !> )!# )$ &%1.# %) # &! 00 8# %&! & !

#&) '&# , )#1. 4 $ ?%

0& && '()

#&& '(+ ,

" 1 !# &# %) # &! 00"%,), #%%1 # !.

1 #1. &#2 ) $) '&# ,)# )

- %&)#&# E7; %##1$" !# %,), %#%#3&

" $

% ! )%

,,$1!)). $!&

/,"

)$ ## &1'%, &

%,), %#%%1 # &#

%%%1 #" ,!."

1 # 1. = &#D =, ) =" =%% =" ## !

&# $& , ) &&# , #"

.1!)$ 6 #

&# " %# 1 !

" !

%%!&# )%# + &#

5 1!

#" 0& &13&& !! $ '& # % 1

# %#%

%# )!

%&!, #

%,), #%

F 8# %&! & !

#&)'&# ,

:=1! &), 0& ## + % .

!*! !

/ 01.'! !

!# #%)# 1 %,), )$ && "

&!"%1 #!. &#

&## %1), #1)# &13&& " )). !

%3& # $!

#!, %#!." !# %&! & !

#&) '&# , :=1!&),0& &% & )

23 !&1, , % ! .)%

,% ,1" %1% %&,% # #%

#!."!# %&! & &1, # 0&1! $, 1!.

!#!> ,)& #'&# , <65" ) " )%

%!!.# :&&/*)!/.!

(#/7/.!%!!&%+&/+11!+#!%+&%*,!%+;#*//!&"/+/!<!&/*&;.*). .!+%<*//!%/.!),+*</.!1,+*&/*= #" "1 0& 1! $&!. !# %

" # # #&

% %, ,)& # '&# , !

0& &# %# )& ))% 1 0& &

%&!<$)&! %#)

,)& #'&# , &!# ) ,)) #

!,#,1 0&

7#, %!

, )!

" " &

#%#8# %&! & &# ) ,"

# .

)$ && % !! #" !! #

!# &

> !# 8# %&! 6 &# 0&1!

# ### - -7")#1. 0!!%"

;

A#" 8&#

<6 49 % ,& 57-

# ,& %3& )). A&#$(&#$ #

#" !

!#,& 5 ?

# !

(&#

# $% !! #1.

# #

.# 1 #&!. %)# $&%#"

& !

2&4# %# . --# ) #!

$# 8# %&! # ,)& # #%"

)#&%#1. )!

# )#&%#1. # #<64 " !% #% )# 1 #, ,#1. # #+ & &1, # %

#%&, $6

#1. )!

" !0& # %% # ,)& ##%)# !

& 8# %&! & # 2&4#"

<6/#<6"

!# %

#%)." &1, ! %& # )! ,# &) + & &1, # $ " )$ ## &#0!&5 2&4# 2& !! $ ) #& !

, #!! )).

% # # # % !! #), #

9 1& !# .) " "

%# %. )$ % --% 2&%"77"

# &# E--2& 6 & #G2& 6 & # 666 1666 % &!

!, )&) 1%,

,) 1! 1. #&% 2& )). F 8# %&! & &1, # % %# 2&4# !

))." ,> 2&6 2 %!&5 2&4##&# E2 2& !! $ ) #& !

, 4

% "# # # % "!! #), #1& !# .) 6% , !#1& !# " !

$% $ ,. 3&!

. 6% " .&, &, 1. ,

# ), . ) "#))!. ,. ,.&%

!"1% $# 3&!

. 6% "1 #1..&% ,

#" ## ! &# 2& )&% !#1& !# % ## !

1& !# ) "! ,)$,

. )&)

! &# 2& !!1))!

%1!&# 6 &!# &! " F 8# %&! & &1, # $) 2&4#"&!# &! ,#, ))."

2& $%#&) %%#% !

- 8# %&! & &# )!

' #

8 !$ ,# 6% #

!&%

" !!

&,1

,) >1., !#

," )!

$ )).1. . ,)& ##%A&# !

%3& # % , !%

$&))# )%& % 8# %&! !!.&1, # )!# #$ #%%!!. 2&4# ,#)) #%&,'& 1 )).

"3&

))!! @

(&"1 #&

" #

!.%%##

, '&# ,# #%## 7 + )!." !# %&! )#/)!

&# @

(& #&

#& " # # #+ & &1, # ,

) ,# .

# " # & "

) ,#%#,

A&#$(&+ & &1, #

! 1 ,)& # % #%" %% , ,#1.)!

(& !.#&

#A&#$(& 8# %&! )#/)!

& &1, # )$ && % $ !& 7 &#

7# #%# 7" $" $ #% %#

$$# #& 8# %&! )# & &1, #

## $& A&#$(& # 5 ?

!# . -"

!! #1.,& "

" # A&#$(&"% ,& 1. 0!!%";

A#"8&#

)### - -7

%&!!. %%@

(&%&!# !

)). 8#%&! )# & &1, #

) )!

" % # @

(&1 !.#&

#A&#$(& !.#, #1.

%)# ) , 8#%&! )# & &# $ ) )!

" !.1, # )).

# )& @

(&H !! , %

%%! &%% # , 1#, # 1.

8# %&! )# & &1, # A&# !

%# &!!! % , ! !&#%

+0 #;+%%& ,&#A&#$(&# %3& #

% #

%&"

%# 2& 8#%&! )# & &# &##%, 6 %

--" " % $ !& 7

!# 7"

)).# #%%

! % , 8#%&! )# & &1, #

2&%, 6 %" ) ##$1.

2&## # $> % 1!) #

. &

!#+ ! &# )& "@

(&$))## !.# #A&# !

" )& ))%+ & &1, # B/## ! )$# 6%& 2&4#1.)#&%

# %)#

. 8#%&! )# & &1, #

" ?1'.!

( !:

% !"1 " ))###

$ 2&" # + & &1, # B #B9"

1 #&

A&#$(&" $!#, # $ )#/)!

8#%&! )# !

#&)'&# , :H1!&),0&## 4 "

! 56!

&1, !# &!# &

. )'&# % 1%& % 0& : $"

'&# , ))!

%1 !

. # )& ) % 8#%&! )# & &1, # 1 0&1! $

!.%##

# #% 1 #1.# ##1.)!.

&##, )

#).# # , ! ))! +)!."!# %&! # &, #&1, # %&!#1# )&#1. )#/)!

2&4# $)#&%#1 $&& % ,& #

% ! #, # , # #5?>+ ! # 2&4#

#$ # , % --% 2&%

)).

$+ & &1, # &

)$ , &! # 2&" $"&% &! $

,#" " 2& '&))#%&,

,#> ) ))."

)$&%# % &&!., # ))!!#" " ,& 6 % 2& !#%&! ) # &

! %&=%# !! ,)& #'&# ,##%"+

# , )))!" !! ? 0&1! $))% # )!# )$ && 1.# %) # &! 00 %#1$" $1

!# ,)& ##% 1 #1. &#D *#"/,>"

% &#

D !)&%,>

%%!., # )$ &)!

(& !.#&

#A&#$(&#D .*#%,> #$%)

(& )% ,

%#!!. #%3& #%,)&!.

+ !! !# ) % )! ! %,), /%#%)# )$ && %1 # &13&& !.

1 #1. &## !! &#1)%

%#)$#!

>% , !

+$ ! !

## 1. 4 $

0& )

- %&)# , - %&)"1 0&1! &13& & #'& # % 1.# %#%

# & %

%&!, # %,), #%

# %##1. 0&1! % &#

))!., #

,)& #'&# ,##%)# % $ !& 7+ ) ,)& #'&# ," %!!.1$# EOn notice of the Court, the defendant appeared and filed written statement in which he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the defendant has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed." Therefore, on the face of it, it is apparent that notice was issued to Rattan Singh and only thereafter, he appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. A perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court shows that it is held that the impugned judgment is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-Trust because its existence is proved, whereas the consent decree could only be set aside on the ground of fraud. Similar is the finding recorded by the ! ))!! 0& 2 " 1% .

,)& ##% 1 #1. . )!.

&#" , $!

##! !#%Hence, Question of law No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellants.

whereas Jagir Kaur was represented by Sh. Kamaljit Singh Gill, Advocate and they were junior to one senior advocate, therefore, it is a suspicious circumstance, however, in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in )

- % &)" , % 1 % %&,% # % #% %%# !." ?(!"/*& ,+; # $& ))!! # % %&,%>1. 0&1!

))!! A&# !

" &1# @

(& # !

" $!$# FIR No. 82 dated 22.05.1977 under Section 302 IPC and in para 7 of the plaint, it is mentioned that even Rattan Singh was injured in the said incident. However, it is a matter of fact that Rattan Singh never appeared as a witness in the criminal trial nor any MLR is produced on record to substantiate the said claim. It is also a matter of fact that Gurdial Singh was acquitted after facing full length trial and the alleged Trust came in existence in between the period when the FIR was registered and Gurdial Singh was acquitted. Therefore, Question of law No. 3 is decided against the respondents/plaintiffs.

(e) Even in the present case, Rattan Singh has never appeared as a plaintiffs's witness to support the case of the plaintiffs that he voluntarily executed the Trust Deed in favour of plaintiff No. 6 or has thumb marked the plaint, therefore, the plaintiffs have withheld the best evidence of personal knowledge of Rattan Singh in voluntary execution of Trust Deed qua suffering the consent

decree and an adverse inference is required to be taken against the plaintiffs.

Therefore, there is a substance in the arguments raised by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the Trust Deed is only a sham and paper transaction and never came in existence as it has come in the evidence as admitted by plaintiff No. 1 Raja Narinder Singh PW-2 that at no point of time, any application was moved before revenue authorities for sanctioning of mutation in favour of the Trust. Secondly, it has come in the written statement of defendant No. 4-Bank (who later on opted not to contest the case as the loan of Rs.

70,000/-, which was sanctioned to Jagir Kaur by creating a simple mortgage, was cleared) that at the time of verification of the revenue record by the bank officials, it was found that neither there is any mutation in favour of the plaintiff/Trust nor there is any change of entry in the revenue records regarding possession in favour of the Trust. Both the Courts below have ignored this important aspect of the pleadings as per written statement filed by defendant No. 4-Bank as even replication was filed by the plaintiffs to this written statement. Therefore, Question of law No. 4 is decided in favour of the appellants.

(f) From the pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as from the admission of PW-2, it is apparent that at no point of time, Rattan Singh transferred the possession of disputed land in favour of the Trust, therefore, there is noting on record to suggest that after the registration of the Trust, it was implemented by Rattan Singh

5 himself in favour of the Trust. Therefore, Question of law No. 6 is decided in favour of the appellants.

(g) Yet another circumstance which was ignored by the Courts below is that as per provisions of Section 77(c) of the Trust Act, 1882, it is provided that Trust is extinguished

!, )&)1%, ,) 1!1.#&%

2&)). Clause 4 of the Trust Deed itself provides that a right was given to the Trust to sell the property, which is contrary to the very basic purpose of creating the Trust and, therefore, the Trust became non-existent, as it loses the character of a charitable trust, when it was never acted upon by Rattan Singh. Therefore, Question of law No. 5 is decided in favour of the appellants.

(h) Even otherwise, it is admitted case of the parties that appellant No. 2 Jagir Kaur is the real daughter of Rattan Singh and vide mutation No. 4873 sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ludhiana, half share of the property of Gurdev Kaur was given to Jagir Kaur and half share was given to Rattan Singh. This order has attained finality and the revenue record was changed and the same has never been challenged. (i) From the pleadings and evidence, it is apparent that Rattan Singh did not appear as a plaintiffs' witness, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondents/plaintiffs with regard to facts:

(i) that possession was never delivered to the Trust;

(ii) that he never moved any application for sanctioning the mutation in favour of the Trust;

(iii) whether he never appeared as a witness in the criminal case to support the reason given in the Trust Deed for ousting his daughter Jagir Kaur;

(iv) that he voluntarily put his thumb impressions on the Turst Dedd and the plaint/suit as it is contested in appeal by the defendants that his thumb impressions do not tally with his standard thumb impression;

(v) that he never challenged the order dated 31.07.1978, passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ludhiana, sanctioning mutation No. 4873 Ex. D-5 regarding inheritance of Gurdev Kaur giving half share to Jagir Kaur and half share to Rattan Singh.

All the aforesaid facts show that Rattan Singh has never acted upon the Trust Deed created by plaintiff No. 1 Raja Narinder Singh, who was the then MLA and the Courts below have failed to draw an adverse inference in this regard. (j) From the above discussion, it is apparent that the Trust allegedly created by Rattan Singh never came in possession of the suit land and it was never acted upon by Rattan Singh. The reasoning given for creating the Trust that Gurdial Singh has committed murder of Gurdev Kaur is not proved as even the judgment of acquittal of Gurdial Singh has not been placed on record by the respondents/plaintiffs though the onus is on them

9 and only the copy of the FIR is placed on record, qua which a inference has been wrongly drawn by both the Courts below. Except registration of the said FIR, no reason has been given as to why Jagir Kaur, the only daughter of Rattan Singh, has been debarred from inheriting the property, when Rattan Singh has already given the suit land to Jagir Kaur by way of impugned consent decree.

In view of the above and as per finding on all the questions of law, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by both the Courts below, are set set aside. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed.

The mesne profit, deposited by the appellants in terms of interim order(s) passed by this Court, shall be returned to the appellant, after four months of passing of this judgment.