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  Vill­ Parowal, 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 Principal­

Balwant 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 Singh­

husband 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