(6) In our considered view, the claim put forth by the petitioners deserves to be rejected on legal as well as equitable principles. The petitioners admittedly vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1969 (R3/2) sold the entire landholding which they had got from their mother, to the father of contesting respondents for a consideration. The sale deed expressly recites that the petitioners have sold the entire land “including right in shamlat land…”, tubewell, trees “with all kind of other joint rights…” to the vendee. Having done so, the petitioners cannot blow hot and cold, nor they can be permitted to raise such a belated claim, purely out of greed. Their plea that while executing the gift deed dated 22.04.1959, their mother did not transfer her rights in shamlat land to them, has also been falsified by learned counsel for the respondents who read out the gift deed which is in Gurmukhi and it explicitly recites that rights in shamlat land had also been transferred. In the translated version placed on record, that line in the gift deed is unfortunately omitted. Even in the absence of such a recital in the gift deed, the petitioners are bound by the irrevocable terms and conditions of the registered sale deed executed by them in favour of Jagir Singh. The petitioners being no longer proprietors of the village qua the land
