suit by Donor – 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 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 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 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.

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