Full Judgment
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated December 24, 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which he suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by reversing the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1980 passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Dhuri.
2. The following question of law arises for determination in this appeal:-
'Whether Mahant Ishwara Nand was competent to executed the Will (Ex.P1) in favour of Smt. Durga Devi Plaintiff?'
3. Durga Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in her possession over the suit land measuring 20 Bighas, which was willed away in her favour by Sant. Ishwara and Chela of Mahant Ram Sarup, as she used to render services to him. The Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dhuri, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, an appeal the findings given by the trial Court on issued No. 3, which is to the following effect, were reversed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur:-
'3. Whether the land in dispute belongs to 'Kutiya'?'
Now Smt. Durga Devi plaintiff has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence brought on record.
5. The plaintiff has relied upon a copy of Jamabandi (Ex.P3) for the year 1974-75 showing Ishwara Nand Chela Shri Ram Sarup to be the owner of the suit land and in the possession thereof. No doubt, presumption of truth is attached to the entry in the Jamabandi. However, the case of the defendant-respondents is that Ishwara Nand was the Mohtmim and the land in dispute, in fact, belonged to the Kutiya. In support of their assertion, the defendants have adduced on record additional evidence Exhibits A1 and A2, which are copies of Jamabandis for the year 2000-2001 Bk. showing that the suit land originally belonged to Bhag Singh and Bhola & Kunda. Ex.A4 is the copy of mutation No. 5378 showing that Bhola and Kunda had made an oral gift donating their land comprising in Khasra Nos. 2519 and 2520, in all measuring 8 Bighas and 10 Biswas. Ex.P5 is the copy of mutation No. 5380 indicating that Bhag Singh had orally gifted away his property comprising Khasra Nos. 2517 and 2518 measuring 6 Bighas. Both the mutations had been sanctioned on the same date i.e., 7.6.1952. The order recorded by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, who sanctioned the mutations, is to the effect that they had gifted away their respective properties to the 'Kutiya' of which Ishwra Nand Chela of Shri Ram Sarup was the Mohtmim. However, in Ex.A3, which is a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 and was prepared after the mutation had been sanctioned, Ishwara Nand Chela Ram Sarup was recorded to be owner of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 2519 and 2520. Whereas, Kutiya is recorded to be the owner of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 2517 and 2518 with Ishwara Nand Chela Ram Sarup as Mohtmim thereof. It seems wrong entries have been made in Ex.A3 by the Patwari showing Ishwar Nand Chela Ram Sarup as the owner of Khasra Nos. 2519 and 2520. It has been held in the case reported as Reghunath Dass v. Gajpat Rai and Ors., A.I.R. 1934 Lahore 449, as under:-
'The revenue authorities can only function through a human agency. They cannot enter into any transaction with a legal entity like an idol installed in a Thakardwara. The name of the Mahant or trustee is, therefore, generally entered in the column of owner, so that the revenue authorities may have dealings with him in all those matters which concern the Thakardwara or the religious institution in question. Hence the mere entry of the name of the Mahant in the column of owner does not prove that the property was his private and exclusive property.'
6. In the present case, it is not proved that the property in dispute was the self acquired property or ancestral property of Mahant Ishwara Nand. In case his name has wrongly been entered in the column of 'owner', he cannot be deemed to be the owner of the suit property. He was merely a trustee or Mohtmim of the suit property. It stands proved on record that the suit land originally belonged to Bhag Singh and Bhola & Kunda. They made oral gift donating their land to the Kutiya. They did not donate the land to Mahant Ishwara Nand. He being trustee of the property, cannot be deemed to have become owner thereof so as to confer on him the right to execute a Will in favour of Smt. Durga Devi appellant.
7. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. The appeal is without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.