No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
JATTU RAM A
v.
HAKAM SINGH AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1993
(KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
B
Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882-Ss. 118, 199-Lan~Exchange of
Plaintiff received land of defective title in exchange from defendant-Land
returned under courl decree-Defendant gave some other land to plaintiff but
claimed plaintiff's possession as tenant-at-will--Held, plaintiff came in pos-C
session in exchange and pot as tenant-at-will.
Land and Tenancy Laws-Jamabandi entries-Held, are only for fiscal
purpose and create no title.
The defendant-first respondent exchanged certain lands with the · D
plaintiff-appellant. Due to defect in title the first respondent suffered a
decree in respect of the land exchanged with the plaintiff and the latter
was deprived of 52 kanals
10 marlas of land. As compensation, the tlefen·
dant delivered 47 kanals 1 maria of land to the plaintiff and promised to
pay for the difference.
E
Later, when the defendant started alienting the land in favour of
respondents
No. 2 to 9, the plaintiff
filed a suit for declaration that the
defendant had delivered possession of plaint-scheduled property in ex
change and for consequential orders. The defendant admitted the factum
of exchange but contended that the lands in possession of the plaintiff
were F
only as tenant-at-will though no rent was paid. The suit was decreed.
On appeal by the defendant, the appellate court relied on the entry
made
by the
Patwari in Jamabandi and allowed the appeal and dismissed
the suit holding that the appellant
was only a tenant.
Plairrtill's appeal was G
dismissed by the High Court in limine. The plaintiff filed the appeal by
special leave.
On the question : Whether the appellant was in possession of the
plaint-scheduled lands in exchange as a consequence of compensating him
for the lands
he was deprived of in pursuance of court decree, H
321
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeal, setting aside the decree of the appellate court,
B
and restoring that of the trial court, this Court.
HELD :
1. The first respondent was liable to return to the appellant
lands to an extent of
52 kanals
10 marlas, as the latter had to surrender
under a court decree the same amount of land received by him in exchange
from the defendant over which the defendant
had a defective title. In
furtherance of the oral understanding the appellant came in possession of
the plaint scheduled property in exchange. The entry in column 9 of
Jamabandi to the effect
"Tassawar Tabadla" (as a result of exchange)
fortifies the
stand of the appellant. The first respondent admitted that he
C received no rent from the appellant. It is not his case that for the loss
suffered
by the appellant, the respondent had compensated him by paying
the price of
that land. It is, therefore, too credulous to believe that he let
the appellant in possession of the plaint-scheduled property as a
tenant
at-will, and is a deliberate, desperate and false plea set up by him which
D was wrongly accepted by the appellate court. The High Court failed to
consider the crucial question. (324-D,
G, 323-H)
2.The Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purposes
and they create
no title.
It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and
acquiesced to it. It is a classic instance of fabrication of false entries made
E by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made by the parties, though oral.
(324-E]
3. The decree of the appellate court is perverse,
apart from being
manifestly illegal. (325-A]
F CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 528 of
G
1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.86 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 758 of 1986.
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant.
Ujagar Singh, S.K. Bagga, Mrs. Sureshtha Bagga and Seeraj Bagga
for the Respondents.
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
i
I
JATTIJ RAM v. H. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.J 323
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave is at the behest of A
the plaintiff Jattu Ram. He laid a suit for declaration that Hakam Singh,
the first. respondent, had delivered possession of the plaint scheduled
property in exchange and for consequential orders. In Case
No. 253-1 of
1981 by Addi.
Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore, decreed on September
8, 1983. On appeal, the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. B
161/83 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on February 12, 1986. The
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in R.S.A. No. 758/86 dismissed in
limine.
The admitted facts are that the appellant possessed of 90 kanals 7
marlas of land scattered at different places in the Vilfage Malikzada. The C
first respondent had agreed to exchange those lands with his land in an
extent of 90 kanals 12 marlas and for the excess 5 mailas, the appellant
had paid the money.
It transpired later on that the first respondent had
defective title of his lands since he had purchased from Kartar Kaur and
her
two minor sons. The minor sons filed a civil suit against Hakam
Singh D
claiming 2/3rd share and the Civil Court decreed the suit holding that the
sale made
by the mother of their 2/3rd share was void. Consequently on
demand made
by the minors, the appellant had to surrender 52 kanals
10
marlas of land to the minor sons of Kartar Kaur. As compensation thereof,
the first respondent delivered
47 kanals 1 maria of land and promised to E
pay compensation for the balance loss of land and also promised to get
mutation affected in the revenue records. Thereafter, when the first
respondent started alienating the land in favour of the respondent Nos. 2
to
9, the appellant filed the above suit. The first respondent admitted the
factum of the exchange
as well as his purchasing the property from and
decree of the
civil court that sale to the extent of 2/3rd share of minors as
void and that the appellant had parted with possession of 52 Kanals and
10 Marlas of lands in favour of the minors. However, he pleaded that the
appellant had without his consent, voluntarily parted with possession of the
lands. He further averred that the lands in the possession of the appellant
F
are only as tenant-at-will.
Yet the first respondent had admitted that no G
rent was paid after the delivery of the possession of 47 kanals 1 maria. The
appellate court also found in· column 9 of Exh. PB Jamabandi "Tassawar
Tabadla" (as a result of exchange), but however, it proceeded on the
premise posing a question in the beginning of the consideration whether
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2S.C.R.
A the appellant came into possession only as a tenant and based on the entry
of the Patwari in that behalf, without any further evidence, concluded that
the appellant
was only a tenant. The question, on these admitted facts, is
whether the appellant is in possession of the plaint scheduled lands on.
exchange as a consequence of compensating him for the loss of 52 kanals
B
10 marlas.
Section
119 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 (for short 'The
Act') envisages that if any party to an exchange.: .........
is by reason of any
defect in title of the other party deprived of the thing or any part of the
thing received
by him in exchange, then, unless a contrary intention appears
.C from the terms of tHe exchange, such other party is liable to him ...... for the
return of the thing transferred .............. " The admitted case is that the
appellant had exchanged his lands With the first respondent. Due to defect
in,,title, the first respondent had suffered a decree of 2/3rd share of the
minors
who had admittedly taken possession of an extent of 52 kanals
10
D marlas from the appellant. The appellant was deprived of that property
and the first respondent
is liable to return to the appellant to the extent of
52 kanals
10 marlas. Obviously, in furtherance of the oral understanding
the appellant came in possession of
47 kanals 1 maria in exchange. The
entry in column 9 thus fortifies the stand of the appellant. The sole entry
E on which the appellate court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in
J amabandi.
It is settled law that the J amabandi entries are only for fiscal
purpose and they create on title.
It is not the case that the appellant had
any knowledge and acquiesced to it. Therefore, it
is a classic instance of
fabrication of false entries made
by the Patwari, contrary to the contract
F
made by the parties, though oral. The first respondent admitted that he
received no rent from the appellant. Thus it
is clear that the plea of the
first respondent that the appellant
was his lessee-at-will is a false one. It is
not his case that for the loss suffered by the appellant, the respondent had
compensated him
by paying the price of that land. It is, therefore, too
oredulous to believe that he let the appellant in possession of the plaint
G scheduled property as a tenant-at-will and is a deliberate, desparate and
false plea set up
by him, which unfortunately found favour with the appel
late court and the High Court paid no attention to
go into the crucial
question and dismissed the appeal
as usual, in limine. The contention of
Sri Ujagar Singh, the learned Senior counsel that the appellant's sons
H
JATTU RAM v. H.SINGH[RAMASWAMY,J.] 325
purchased 8 kanals of land from his client was a step in aid to woodwink A
the innocent appellant and a self serving. Thus we are constrained to hold
that the decree of the appellate court
is perverse, apart from manifestly.
illegal. It and the High Court decree are accordingly set aside and that
of the trial court is restored and the appeal is allowed with costs
throughout.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court's decision in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh & Ors. stands as a pivotal judgment concerning Jamabandi Entries in Property Disputes and the application of Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act. This crucial ruling, authoritatively detailed on CaseOn, clarifies the limited evidentiary value of revenue records against the substantive rights of parties in a land exchange gone wrong, establishing that factual reality must prevail over fabricated fiscal entries.
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was: When a party to a land exchange is deprived of their property due to a defective title and is subsequently given possession of compensatory land, does their possession arise from the exchange agreement, or can it be characterized as a mere tenancy-at-will, especially when revenue records suggest the latter?
This section provides a remedy for a failed exchange. It stipulates that if a party is deprived of the property received in an exchange due to a defect in the other party's title, the deprived party is entitled to the return of their original property or compensation for their loss.
The Court reiterated a well-settled legal principle: Jamabandi (revenue record) entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes, such as tax collection. They do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title to the property. While they can have some evidentiary value, they cannot override the true nature of a transaction established by facts and conduct.
The facts of the case were straightforward. Jattu Ram (the appellant) exchanged his land with Hakam Singh (the respondent). However, Hakam Singh's title was defective, as a court later ruled that two-thirds of the land belonged to minor children. Consequently, Jattu Ram lost possession of 52 kanals and 10 marlas of land.
To compensate for this loss, Hakam Singh delivered 47 kanals and 1 marla of different land to Jattu Ram. Later, when Hakam Singh attempted to sell this compensatory land, Jattu Ram filed a suit seeking a declaration of his rights. Hakam Singh's defense was a legal fiction: he claimed Jattu Ram was merely a “tenant-at-will,” despite admitting that no rent was ever paid or agreed upon.
The appellate court had erroneously relied on an entry made by the Patwari (local revenue official) in the Jamabandi, which labeled Jattu Ram a tenant. The Supreme Court dismantled this reasoning entirely, describing the respondent’s plea as “deliberate, desperate and false.” The Court found it “too credulous to believe” that a person who had lost valuable land would be compensated with a mere tenancy-at-will.
The Court pointed out several key factors:
The Court condemned the Patwari’s entry as a “classic instance of fabrication of false entries” made contrary to the actual oral agreement between the parties. Dissecting such nuanced judicial reasoning is crucial. For legal professionals on the go, CaseOn.in 2-minute audio briefs break down the core analysis of rulings like this, making it easier to grasp key takeaways quickly.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the “perverse” and “manifestly illegal” decrees of the High Court and the appellate court. It restored the original trial court's decision, which had ruled in favor of Jattu Ram. The final holding was clear: Jattu Ram was in possession of the land as a consequence of the exchange and the compensation owed to him, not as a tenant. The fabricated revenue entry could not rewrite the reality of the transaction.
The case involved a land exchange where the plaintiff, Jattu Ram, received land with a defective title from the defendant, Hakam Singh. After being dispossessed by a court decree, Jattu Ram was given compensatory land by Hakam Singh. The defendant later claimed the plaintiff's possession was that of a tenant-at-will, relying on a manipulated revenue record. The trial court sided with the plaintiff, but the appellate and High Courts reversed this, based on the revenue entry. The Supreme Court overturned these reversals, holding that Jamabandi entries are for fiscal purposes only and do not create title. It ruled that the plaintiff's possession was a direct result of the exchange and the defendant's duty to compensate, making the tenancy claim a false plea.
For lawyers and law students, this judgment is essential for several reasons:
The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on any specific legal issue, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....