Gurtej Singh vs Murti Devi and ors.

D.V. Sehgal, J.

This regular second appeal by Gurtej Singh defendantappellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.11.1977 passed in appeal by the learned Senior Sub Judge with enhanced appellate powers, Sirsa, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1977 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dabwali, decreeing the suit of Smt. Murti Devi plaintiffrespondent No. 1 was affirmed.

The suit land measuring 37 Kanals 7 Marlas is jointly owned by the respondents including Smt. Murti Devi. The appellant is the son of Jang Singh respondent No. 2 one of the cosharers of the land. Upto Rabi 1975, it was recorded to be under the selfcultivation of the owners. However, on 9.5.1975 the appellant filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdawaris in respect of the suit land before the Naib Tehsildar, Dabwali. He impleaded therein only Smt. Murti Devi, who was a minor at that time, through her mother Smt. Tej Kaur. Smt. Tej Kaur appeared before the Naib Tehsildar and filed a statement in the Khasra Girdawaris from Kharif 1972 uptodate in respect of the suit land were ordered to be corrected and the land was recorded as in the cultivating possession of the appellant.

On 11.2.1976 respondent No. 1 filed a suit through her next friend Mohan Singh for declaration to the effect that she along with the coowners, i.e., the remaining respondents, is in selfcultivating possession of the land and that the order dated 27.6.1975 passed by the Naib Tehsildar correcting the entries in the Khasra Girdwaris showing the appellant''s possession are against law and facts and not binding on her and the other coowners. She also sought a decree for possession in case the appellant in the meantime was successful in dispossessing her from the suit land. She pleaded that before the Naib Tehsildar she was wrongly made a party through her mother Smt. The Taj Kaur. She was no doubt a minor but she was married and her natural guardian was her husband Chhota Singh. Any admission made by Smt. Tej Kaur was, thus, not binding on her.

The suit was contested by the appellant who asserted his possession on the suit land and further contended that the suit was not maintainable in the present form nor the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. He also claimed special costs on the ground that the suit was a frivolous one. He further pleaded that the suit had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

As already stated above, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellant had contended that the finding returned by the learned Courts below to the effect that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit is not correct. His contention is that corrections in the Khasra Girdawari entries were made by the Naib Tehsidar and the remedy open to respondent No. 1 was to present an appeal before the higher Revenue authorities. He has, however, not been able to bring to my notice any statutory bar to the maintainability of this suit in the Civil Court. It is to be noticed that when a party is aggrieved against an entry in the record of rights maintained under the Punjab Land Revenue Act a suit for declaration is maintainable in the Civil Court. No doubt a Khasra Girdawari is not a record of rights, but the entries therein for a number of years have the cumulative effect while preparing the next Jamabandi. Thus, the impugned order of the Naib Tehsildar which cast a doubt on the possession of respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit land along with the other coowners has been rightly agitated by her by bringing the instant suit, I, therefore, uphold the finding of the learned Courts below in this regard.

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that mother is a natural guardian of a minor and such a minor can be used through his/her mother. His contention is against the specific provision of clause (c) of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which lays down that natural guardian in case of a married Hindu minor girl in respect of the minor''s person as well as in respect of the minor''s property is her husband. Therefore, to the exclusion of the husband, the mother of respondent No. 1 who was admittedly a married minor girl, could not represent her before the Naib Tehsildar or make an admission on her behalf.

The last contention of the learned counsel is that Chhota Singh P.W. 3, husband of respondent No. 1, in his statement in the witness box has admitted forcible possession of the appellant. With the help of the learned counsel, I have gone through the statement of this witness. This statement has to be read as a whole. He has categorically stated that respondent No. 1 along with the other coowners is in selfcultivating possession of the suit land. He has further stated that the appellant has been trying to take forcible possession of the suit land. It is not possible to segregate a sentence from its context and to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel.

I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.