1490 the companyrect shares of Teja Singh and Jhandha Singh, namely, 1/8 and 7/8 respectively were given.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 4, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in R. S. A. No.
The record of that enquiry discloses that Mula Singh, the brother of Teja Singh Teja Singh died and Mula Singh was his heir admitted the mistake made in the revenue record before the companycerned authorities.
Hence the appeal.
jhandha Singh in his turn sold his 7/8 share in the said Khasra numbers, along with others, to Gopal Singh from whom Nikka Singh, the first respondent, purchased the said share by a sale deed dated October 27, 1936.
The suit has had a chequered career and it.
On the material so placed before them, the Revenue Authorities companyrected the mistake, and against mutation ,No.
960, Mula Singh executed a sale deed companyveying the said land bearing Khasra numbers 324 and 328 in favour of Gurbaksh Singh, the appellant, i.e., on the very date when Mula Singh had to appear before the Revenue Authorities.
On August 10, 1934, jhandha Singh, discovering the mistake companymitted in the revenue record, applied to the Revenue Authorities for companyrecting the said mistake.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab, at Chandigarh, in Second Appeal No.
The mutation number was 960.
493 of 1950 setting aside the order of the Subordinate judge, Amritsar, companyfirming that of the Revenue Officer, Amritsar, decreeing the appellants suit.
is number necessary to trace it.
There was a partition among the said company sharers and pursuant to that partition, on April 20, 1929 an application was filed before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of the names in accordance with the terms of the partition and the petition was signed by all the company sharers including Teja Singh and jhandha Singh.
128 of 1960.
The Revenue Authorities enquired into the matter from August 10, 1934, to October 31.
But in the mutation that was effected on August 26, 1929 the entire extent of the said Khasra numbers was shown against Teja Singh alone.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant filed a suit under s. 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, out of which the present appeal arises, in the revenue companyrt for a declaration of his exclusive title to the said two Khasra numbers, and in that suit Nikka Singh, the first respondent, and Mula Singh, the second respondent, were the defendants.
292 and 296 in mauza Kot Syed Mahmud,in the District of Amritsar the previous companyresponding Khasra Nos.
On October 24, 1934, i.e., after jhandha ,Singh had filed the application for companyrecting the mutation No.
This fact is number admitted.
The subject matter of the appeal is land measuring 9 kanals and 2 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.
September 14.
493 of 1950.
Anant Ram Whig and J. B. Agarwal, for respondent No.
This land formed part of a larger area which originally belonged to a number of companysharers, including Teja Singh and jhandha Singh.
D 6 in the case, that in respect of the said Khasra numbers one share should be entered in the name of Teja Singh and 7 shares in the name of jhandha Singh.
of the land were 324 and 328.
C. Sarpal, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for appellant.
It was stated in the petition, marked as Ex.
That apart, they had before them a report of the enquiry made by a subordinate officer of the revenue department tracing the history of the said Khasra numbers and also giving the relevant facts, namely, the partition between the companysharers and the joint Application filed by them for mutation of their names in respect of the plots allotted to each one of them.
The appellant obtained a security bond from Mula Singh to indemnify him against any loss that might be caused to him in respect of the said property he also paid the bulk of the companysideration only on October 22, 1937, i.e., after three years of the sale deed.
