REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.46294630 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 41204121 of 2019)
Randhir Kaur (Deceased) through her Lrs. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Balwinder Kaur & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The present Appeals have been filed against the common
judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in RSA Nos. 2879 and 4771 of 2015.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellants have
filed the present Appeals.
1
3. The background facts in which the present Appeals have been
filed, briefly narrated are as follows:
3.1 The predecessorintitle of the suit property Smt.
Randhir Kaur w/o Harnandan Singh vide a registered
Gift Deed dated 27.05.1981 donated a property
admeasuring 4 Kanals 10 Marlas of land bearing
Khata No. 15/18, Khasra No. 766/567 (410) situated
at Parowal Tehsil Garhshankar to Doaba Public
School, Garhshankar [hereinafter referred to as the
“suit property”]. The Gift was executed for the specific
purpose of advancing the cause of education of
children of the area, for which the property was
transferred with all rights to the Doaba Public School,
run by the Doaba Education Society, Garhshankar.
The Gift Deed was executed by the Donar viz
Smt. Randhir Kaur through her husband as power of
attorney holder. The Gift Deed was witnessed by Mr.
Ujjagar Singh, Nambardar, Parowal. The second
witness was Mr. Balwant Singh, the Principal of the
School.
2
3.2 The suit property was duly mutated in the name of the
Doaba Public School vide Mutation Entry dated
04.12.1981.
3.3 The Respondents contend that by an oral
memorandum of exchange on 1.8.1988, the Principal
of Doaba Public School Mr. Balwant Singh, and Mr.
Mohinder Singh, the President of Doaba Education
Society, purportedly exchanged the land of the School
admeasuring 24 Kanals in Tehsil Garhshankar, with
the personal land owned by Mr. Balwant Singh in
Village Khanni, Tehsil Garhshnakar. This exchange
included the land admeasuring 4 Kanals 10 Marlas
which had been donated by Smt. Randhir Kaur, the
predecessor of the Appellants herein. Subsequently, an
agreement dated 25.8.1988 was executed by the
Principal of the Doaba Public School and the President
of the Doaba Education Society.
3.4 Mr. Balwant Sing, Principal had the lands of the school
mutated in his own name on 29.10.1988 vide mutation
3
of exchange no.1824, based on the aforesaid
agreement of exchange.
3.5 On the death of Balwant Singh in 1995, his widow
Balwinder Kaur/Respondent No.1 herein became the
owner of the suit property.
3.6 Smt. Randhir Kaur – the donar of the suit property
and therefore filed Civil Suit No. 66 of 2001, wherein
she prayed for the following two reliefs:
“It is, therefore, prayed that decree for
possession of land measuring 4 kls 10 mrls
bearing Khewat no.94, Khatauni no. 124 Khasra
No. 756/567 (410), as entered in Jamabandi
199495 situated in the area of villpersona, M.B.
No. 266. TheGarhshankar, Distt.Hoshiarpur,
after removal of all types of Malba.
OR
In the alternative a decree for declaration to
the effect that the defdt. No.2 is owner in
possession of land measuring 4 kls 10 mrls
bearing Khewat No.94, Khatauni No.124, Khasra
No.756/567 (410), situated in the area of VillParowal, TheGarhshankar. DisttHoshiarpur and
that the mutation No.1824 allegedly regarding
exchange of above said land from the name of
defdt. No.2 in the name of husband of defdt. No.1
i.e. Balwant Singh is wrong, incorrect, illegal,
unlawful, null and voidabinitio, ineffective and
inoperative, against the rights of defdt. No.2 and
is liable to be set aside and that the entries in the
column of ownership of Jamabandi 199495
showing the defdt. No.1 as owner of the said land
4
are wrong, incorrect, illegal, unlawful, null and
void, having no effect on the rights of defdt. No.2
and are liable to be corrected to show the defdt.
No.2 as owner in possession f the same with a
consequential relief of Perpetual Injunction
restraining the defdt. No.1 from execution any
instrument of alienation in favour of some third
person by taking undueadvantage of the wrong
entries in her favour and for restraining the
defendant from using the suit land for any other
purpose except for the purposes subservient to
the educational activities of defdt. No.2 may
kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defdts. with costs which is in the
interest of justice and equity.”
3.7 The Trial Court vide its detailed judgment and order
dated 29.07.2011 partly allowed the suit filed by the
appellant herein. The first prayer for decree of
possession could not be granted pursuant to the
registered Gift Deed, the land had vested in the School.
However, the Court granted the alternate relief prayed
for. The Court held that as the School failed to produce
any Resolution passed by the Doaba Education Society
empowering the Principal to enter into an exchange of
the property of the School. The Respondent No.2 had
sought to exchange 24 Kanals of unarable,
unirrigated land situated in a remote village of Khanni
5
located in the Shivalik foothills for the valuable
property of the School. By the exchange the PrincipalBalwant Singh claimed ownership over the suit
property. The Respondent No.1 had the mutation of
the suit property changed into his own name.
Thereafter, he executed a leasedeed dated 27.05.2002
of the School property, showing the School to be the
lessee. As a consequence, the school now became the
lessee, and the Principal became the owner of the suit
property.
The Trial Court held that the exchange was clearly
illegal, in the absence of any resolution passed by the
Society. Since the exchange was held to be illegal, the
Appellants were granted the alternative relief prayed
for, i.e. a declaration that the Doaba Education Society
as the owner in possession of the land. The
Respondent No.1 had no right to use the suit property
for any other purpose, except the educational activities
of the Respondent No.2School. The Respondent No.1
was permanently restrained from alienating the suit
property, or using it in any manner, than for the
6
educational needs of the school. The Trial Court held
that the Respondent No.2School was the duly
appointed trustee in possession of the land of 4 kanals
10 marlas donated by the plaintiffs. The Court ordered
that the mutation of exchange No.1824 be set aside,
being illegal, null and void. The entries in the revenue
record be corrected in favour of the Respondent No.2
School as owner and in possession of the suit property.
3.8 Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional
District Judge. The Appellate Court held that it would
not be possible for the donor to contend that the gift is
not valid. The Appellate Court was of the view that the
Appellants have no locus standi to agitate the matter,
because she was left with no concern over the suit
property after the execution of the Gift Deed. The
cancellation of the Gift Deed could not be considered.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court,
and declared that the cancellation of the mutation in
favour of the Respondent herein was not correct.
3.9 Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants filed a
Second Appeal before the High Court of Punjab and
7
Haryana. The High Court vide impugned judgment
dated 25.5.2018 affirmed the order of the First
Appellate Court.
3.10 The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants
who are the legal representatives of Smt. Randhir Kaur
the donor of the suit property. The Appellants have
inter alia contended that the donation of the suit
property was for the benefit of the students of the
School; the transfer/exchange by Balwant Singhhusband of Respondent No.1 who was the Principal of
the School, was illegal and vitiated by ulterior motives.
The property which had been donated by the
Appellants was of high value and quality, which was
sought to be exchanged with a property which was
inferior in quality, and was unirrigated land, situated
in a remote village Khanni; the exchange was without
any legal sanction or authority from the society
running the School.
3.11 The learned Counsel for the Respondents inter alia
submitted that the Gift Deed dated 27.05.1981 did not
reserve any rights for the Donor. After the execution of
8
the Gift Deed the Appellants had no locus to file a suit
for possession of the suit property, as possession was
delivered to the Respondent No.2School vide the
registered Gift Deed. It was further submitted that the
Gift Deed had no condition wherein it could be
cancelled by the Donor.
The Appellants divested themselves from any
right of title in the suit property which was passed to
the Donee. Once the registered Gift Deed had been
executed without reserving any right in the suit
property, it could not be revoked.
The oral exchange of lands on 1.8.1988 between
the Principal of the School, and the President of the
Doaba Education Society, was later reduced in writing
by virtue of an agreement dated 25.08.1988. The
Respondents produced for the first time a copy of a
Resolution dated 1.8.1988 in favour of Mohinder
Singh, the President of the Society to sell or exchange
the School’s property. This document was never
produced before the Courts below. The authenticity of
this document has not been proved. We did not permit
9
the Respondent to place additional documents on
record at the fag end before this Court.
It was further argued that even though the land
was exchanged to set up a school in a remote area
which would give an opportunity to the children of
Village Khanni to get access to education, the school
continued to run from the suit property. During the
course of arguments, the learned Counsel also
suggested that the Respondents would give an
Undertaking that the School would be run from the
suit property in the future also.
4.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties at length.
4.1 Having carefully perused the record filed before this
Court, and considering the oral submissions made by
the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered
view that both the First Appellate Court and the High
Court. It has been erroneously held that the mutation
entries for exchange by Respondent No.1 was valid.
Even though, the Appellants/plaintiffs herein had
10
prayed for a decree of possession of the land which
had been gifted to Respondent No. 2School; there was
an alternate prayer made for a decree of declaration
that the School was the owner in possession of the
land which had been gifted to it, and that the mutation
of exchange was illegal, unlawful, and liable to be set
aside. The Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit on
the alternate prayer. The First Appellate Court and the
High Court confined their discussion only with respect
to the prayer for declaration for possession of the suit
property. The Appellant Court and High Court
completely vest right of the alternate prayer made by
the Appellant.
4.2 The purported oral exchange dated 01.08.1988,
followed by the Agreement dated 25.08.1988, between
Balwant Singh, the then Principal of the Doaba Public
School, with Mohinder Singh the President of the
School, was a wholly collusive and illegal transaction.
The exchange was illegal and unauthorized, since
there was no Resolution passed by the Doaba
11
Education Society which was running the school in
favour of the President to exchange the land owned
and vested in the School pursuant to the Gift Deed.
The Principal and the President of the school in
Garhshankar entered into this collusive transaction,
whereby Balwant Singh the then Principal became
the owner of the suit property. The school could not
have been divested of the ownership of the suit
property by the socalled exchange mentioned above.
This was in complete breach of faith and trust by the
President of the Society and Principal of the School.
4.3 The ostensible reason given by the Respondents for the
exchange was that this was for the benefit of the
students in Village Khanni, Garhshankar.
This reason was a mere camouflage which is
apparent from the fact that the School has not been
shifted to Village Khanni since the date of purported
exchange on 25.08.1988 i.e. since the past 31 years.
The School to date continues to be run from the suit
property and adjoining lands.
12
It is obvious that the socalled exchange was a
mere ruse to transfer the valuable land of the School
which had been gifted by the mother of the Appellants,
to the Principal, in exchange for some unirrigated
inferior quality banjar land situated in a remote corner
in Village Khanni.
Once the School was divested of ownership on the
basis of the purported exchange, the Respondents
executed a Lease Deed in favour of the School, wherein
the School was now shown as a Lessee, and was
required to pay lease rent to the Principal and later his
legal heirs.
5. The purported exchange dated 01.08.1988 and 25.08.1988
being wholly illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The
Jamabandis reflecting the purported exchange are quashed
and set aside. The Jamabandis be restored by the revenue
authorities in the name of the Doaba Public School,
Garhshankar, Village Parowal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
The Appeals are allowed accordingly.
13
The Respondents are directed to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac
to the Appellants herein within a period of 12 weeks, and
report compliance to this Court.
…...........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…...……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
May 6, 2019.
14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.46294630 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 41204121 of 2019)
Randhir Kaur (Deceased) through her Lrs. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Balwinder Kaur & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The present Appeals have been filed against the common
judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in RSA Nos. 2879 and 4771 of 2015.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellants have
filed the present Appeals.
1
3. The background facts in which the present Appeals have been
filed, briefly narrated are as follows:
3.1 The predecessorintitle of the suit property Smt.
Randhir Kaur w/o Harnandan Singh vide a registered
Gift Deed dated 27.05.1981 donated a property
admeasuring 4 Kanals 10 Marlas of land bearing
Khata No. 15/18, Khasra No. 766/567 (410) situated
at Parowal Tehsil Garhshankar to Doaba Public
School, Garhshankar [hereinafter referred to as the
“suit property”]. The Gift was executed for the specific
purpose of advancing the cause of education of
children of the area, for which the property was
transferred with all rights to the Doaba Public School,
run by the Doaba Education Society, Garhshankar.
The Gift Deed was executed by the Donar viz
Smt. Randhir Kaur through her husband as power of
attorney holder. The Gift Deed was witnessed by Mr.
Ujjagar Singh, Nambardar, Parowal. The second
witness was Mr. Balwant Singh, the Principal of the
School.
2
3.2 The suit property was duly mutated in the name of the
Doaba Public School vide Mutation Entry dated
04.12.1981.
3.3 The Respondents contend that by an oral
memorandum of exchange on 1.8.1988, the Principal
of Doaba Public School Mr. Balwant Singh, and Mr.
Mohinder Singh, the President of Doaba Education
Society, purportedly exchanged the land of the School
admeasuring 24 Kanals in Tehsil Garhshankar, with
the personal land owned by Mr. Balwant Singh in
Village Khanni, Tehsil Garhshnakar. This exchange
included the land admeasuring 4 Kanals 10 Marlas
which had been donated by Smt. Randhir Kaur, the
predecessor of the Appellants herein. Subsequently, an
agreement dated 25.8.1988 was executed by the
Principal of the Doaba Public School and the President
of the Doaba Education Society.
3.4 Mr. Balwant Sing, Principal had the lands of the school
mutated in his own name on 29.10.1988 vide mutation
3
of exchange no.1824, based on the aforesaid
agreement of exchange.
3.5 On the death of Balwant Singh in 1995, his widow
Balwinder Kaur/Respondent No.1 herein became the
owner of the suit property.
3.6 Smt. Randhir Kaur – the donar of the suit property
and therefore filed Civil Suit No. 66 of 2001, wherein
she prayed for the following two reliefs:
“It is, therefore, prayed that decree for
possession of land measuring 4 kls 10 mrls
bearing Khewat no.94, Khatauni no. 124 Khasra
No. 756/567 (410), as entered in Jamabandi
199495 situated in the area of villpersona, M.B.
No. 266. TheGarhshankar, Distt.Hoshiarpur,
after removal of all types of Malba.
OR
In the alternative a decree for declaration to
the effect that the defdt. No.2 is owner in
possession of land measuring 4 kls 10 mrls
bearing Khewat No.94, Khatauni No.124, Khasra
No.756/567 (410), situated in the area of VillParowal, TheGarhshankar. DisttHoshiarpur and
that the mutation No.1824 allegedly regarding
exchange of above said land from the name of
defdt. No.2 in the name of husband of defdt. No.1
i.e. Balwant Singh is wrong, incorrect, illegal,
unlawful, null and voidabinitio, ineffective and
inoperative, against the rights of defdt. No.2 and
is liable to be set aside and that the entries in the
column of ownership of Jamabandi 199495
showing the defdt. No.1 as owner of the said land
4
are wrong, incorrect, illegal, unlawful, null and
void, having no effect on the rights of defdt. No.2
and are liable to be corrected to show the defdt.
No.2 as owner in possession f the same with a
consequential relief of Perpetual Injunction
restraining the defdt. No.1 from execution any
instrument of alienation in favour of some third
person by taking undueadvantage of the wrong
entries in her favour and for restraining the
defendant from using the suit land for any other
purpose except for the purposes subservient to
the educational activities of defdt. No.2 may
kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defdts. with costs which is in the
interest of justice and equity.”
3.7 The Trial Court vide its detailed judgment and order
dated 29.07.2011 partly allowed the suit filed by the
appellant herein. The first prayer for decree of
possession could not be granted pursuant to the
registered Gift Deed, the land had vested in the School.
However, the Court granted the alternate relief prayed
for. The Court held that as the School failed to produce
any Resolution passed by the Doaba Education Society
empowering the Principal to enter into an exchange of
the property of the School. The Respondent No.2 had
sought to exchange 24 Kanals of unarable,
unirrigated land situated in a remote village of Khanni
5
located in the Shivalik foothills for the valuable
property of the School. By the exchange the PrincipalBalwant Singh claimed ownership over the suit
property. The Respondent No.1 had the mutation of
the suit property changed into his own name.
Thereafter, he executed a leasedeed dated 27.05.2002
of the School property, showing the School to be the
lessee. As a consequence, the school now became the
lessee, and the Principal became the owner of the suit
property.
The Trial Court held that the exchange was clearly
illegal, in the absence of any resolution passed by the
Society. Since the exchange was held to be illegal, the
Appellants were granted the alternative relief prayed
for, i.e. a declaration that the Doaba Education Society
as the owner in possession of the land. The
Respondent No.1 had no right to use the suit property
for any other purpose, except the educational activities
of the Respondent No.2School. The Respondent No.1
was permanently restrained from alienating the suit
property, or using it in any manner, than for the
6
educational needs of the school. The Trial Court held
that the Respondent No.2School was the duly
appointed trustee in possession of the land of 4 kanals
10 marlas donated by the plaintiffs. The Court ordered
that the mutation of exchange No.1824 be set aside,
being illegal, null and void. The entries in the revenue
record be corrected in favour of the Respondent No.2
School as owner and in possession of the suit property.
3.8 Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional
District Judge. The Appellate Court held that it would
not be possible for the donor to contend that the gift is
not valid. The Appellate Court was of the view that the
Appellants have no locus standi to agitate the matter,
because she was left with no concern over the suit
property after the execution of the Gift Deed. The
cancellation of the Gift Deed could not be considered.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court,
and declared that the cancellation of the mutation in
favour of the Respondent herein was not correct.
3.9 Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants filed a
Second Appeal before the High Court of Punjab and
7
Haryana. The High Court vide impugned judgment
dated 25.5.2018 affirmed the order of the First
Appellate Court.
3.10 The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants
who are the legal representatives of Smt. Randhir Kaur
the donor of the suit property. The Appellants have
inter alia contended that the donation of the suit
property was for the benefit of the students of the
School; the transfer/exchange by Balwant Singhhusband of Respondent No.1 who was the Principal of
the School, was illegal and vitiated by ulterior motives.
The property which had been donated by the
Appellants was of high value and quality, which was
sought to be exchanged with a property which was
inferior in quality, and was unirrigated land, situated
in a remote village Khanni; the exchange was without
any legal sanction or authority from the society
running the School.
3.11 The learned Counsel for the Respondents inter alia
submitted that the Gift Deed dated 27.05.1981 did not
reserve any rights for the Donor. After the execution of
8
the Gift Deed the Appellants had no locus to file a suit
for possession of the suit property, as possession was
delivered to the Respondent No.2School vide the
registered Gift Deed. It was further submitted that the
Gift Deed had no condition wherein it could be
cancelled by the Donor.
The Appellants divested themselves from any
right of title in the suit property which was passed to
the Donee. Once the registered Gift Deed had been
executed without reserving any right in the suit
property, it could not be revoked.
The oral exchange of lands on 1.8.1988 between
the Principal of the School, and the President of the
Doaba Education Society, was later reduced in writing
by virtue of an agreement dated 25.08.1988. The
Respondents produced for the first time a copy of a
Resolution dated 1.8.1988 in favour of Mohinder
Singh, the President of the Society to sell or exchange
the School’s property. This document was never
produced before the Courts below. The authenticity of
this document has not been proved. We did not permit
9
the Respondent to place additional documents on
record at the fag end before this Court.
It was further argued that even though the land
was exchanged to set up a school in a remote area
which would give an opportunity to the children of
Village Khanni to get access to education, the school
continued to run from the suit property. During the
course of arguments, the learned Counsel also
suggested that the Respondents would give an
Undertaking that the School would be run from the
suit property in the future also.
4.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties at length.
4.1 Having carefully perused the record filed before this
Court, and considering the oral submissions made by
the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered
view that both the First Appellate Court and the High
Court. It has been erroneously held that the mutation
entries for exchange by Respondent No.1 was valid.
Even though, the Appellants/plaintiffs herein had
10
prayed for a decree of possession of the land which
had been gifted to Respondent No. 2School; there was
an alternate prayer made for a decree of declaration
that the School was the owner in possession of the
land which had been gifted to it, and that the mutation
of exchange was illegal, unlawful, and liable to be set
aside. The Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit on
the alternate prayer. The First Appellate Court and the
High Court confined their discussion only with respect
to the prayer for declaration for possession of the suit
property. The Appellant Court and High Court
completely vest right of the alternate prayer made by
the Appellant.
4.2 The purported oral exchange dated 01.08.1988,
followed by the Agreement dated 25.08.1988, between
Balwant Singh, the then Principal of the Doaba Public
School, with Mohinder Singh the President of the
School, was a wholly collusive and illegal transaction.
The exchange was illegal and unauthorized, since
there was no Resolution passed by the Doaba
11
Education Society which was running the school in
favour of the President to exchange the land owned
and vested in the School pursuant to the Gift Deed.
The Principal and the President of the school in
Garhshankar entered into this collusive transaction,
whereby Balwant Singh the then Principal became
the owner of the suit property. The school could not
have been divested of the ownership of the suit
property by the socalled exchange mentioned above.
This was in complete breach of faith and trust by the
President of the Society and Principal of the School.
4.3 The ostensible reason given by the Respondents for the
exchange was that this was for the benefit of the
students in Village Khanni, Garhshankar.
This reason was a mere camouflage which is
apparent from the fact that the School has not been
shifted to Village Khanni since the date of purported
exchange on 25.08.1988 i.e. since the past 31 years.
The School to date continues to be run from the suit
property and adjoining lands.
12
It is obvious that the socalled exchange was a
mere ruse to transfer the valuable land of the School
which had been gifted by the mother of the Appellants,
to the Principal, in exchange for some unirrigated
inferior quality banjar land situated in a remote corner
in Village Khanni.
Once the School was divested of ownership on the
basis of the purported exchange, the Respondents
executed a Lease Deed in favour of the School, wherein
the School was now shown as a Lessee, and was
required to pay lease rent to the Principal and later his
legal heirs.
5. The purported exchange dated 01.08.1988 and 25.08.1988
being wholly illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The
Jamabandis reflecting the purported exchange are quashed
and set aside. The Jamabandis be restored by the revenue
authorities in the name of the Doaba Public School,
Garhshankar, Village Parowal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
The Appeals are allowed accordingly.
13
The Respondents are directed to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac
to the Appellants herein within a period of 12 weeks, and
report compliance to this Court.
…...........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…...……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
May 6, 2019.
14
