Karnataka High Court
Khemu S/O Wachu Lamani vs Gousemohaddin S/O Murtujasa ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: C M Joshi
-1-
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7026 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
KHEMU S/O WACHU LAMANI,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S DEFT. NO.2A TO 2E)
1. BANU S/O KHEMU LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O UTNAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
2. NATU S/O KHEMU LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O UTNAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
3. SHANKAR S/O KHEMU LAMANI,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S)
Digitally signed
by SOMANATH
A) SMT. KASTURI W/O SHANKAR LAMANI,
PENTAPPA
MITTE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: High
Court of
R/O UTNAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
Karnataka
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
B) GEETA D/O SHANKAR LAMANI,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY HER MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3(A),
C) JYOTI D/O SHANKAR LAMANI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY HER MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3(A),
D) SUNIL S/O SHANKAR LAMANI,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY HER MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3(A),
-2-
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
E) REKHA D/O SHANKAR LAMANI,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY HER MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3(A),
4. DHANSU S/O KHEMU LAMANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O UTNAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIAYAPUR.
5. SHAMALABAI W/O KHEMU LAMANI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O UTNAL TANDA, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR A. KALAGI, ADVOACTE)
AND:
1. GOUSEMOHADDIN S/O MURTUJASA JAHAGIRDAR,
@ INAMDAR
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 1(A) TO 1(F))
1(A) MAHERUK W/O JAVEED JAHAGIRDAR,
)D/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN JAHAGIRDAR),
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
1(B) JAVEED S/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
1(C) MUSTAK AHAMED S/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN
JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
-3-
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
1(D) SHOAIB S/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
1(E) MUKHTAR AHMED S/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN
JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
1(F) IFTIKAR AHMED S/O LATE GOUSEMOHADDIN
JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O LANGAR BAZAR GALLI,
NEAR KHADI GRAMOUDHYOG,
SHABARI CLINIC, VIJAYAPUR,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
2. SHAHAJADESAB S/O MURTUJASA JAHAGIRDAR,
@ INAMDAR, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S)
2(A) ABDUL SAMOOD S/O SHAHAJADESAB JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MANAGULLI, BUDAWAR PETH, MIRAJ,
TQ: SANGLI, DIST: SANGLI.
2(B) SAHEBHAJARAT S/O SHAHAJADESAB JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GAVANGALI, BUDAWAR PETH, MIRAJ,
TQ: SANGLI, DIST: SANGLI.
2(C) PEERAPASHA S/O SHAHAJADESAB JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KABANOOR MALLAYYA SWAMI APARTMENT,
ICHALAKARANJI, TQ: SANGLI,
DIST: SANGLI.
-4-
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
2(D) KAMARUNNISA W/O SAYYED NASEERPASHA
GUNAWANI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SAKAF ROZA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
2(E) BANUBEGUM D/O SHAHAJADESAB JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SAKAF ROZA, TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO
R1(F) (ABSENT);
NOTICE TO R2(A), R2(B) & R2(C) ARE SERVED;
V/O DTD. 21.06.2012 NOTICE TO R2(D) IS HLD SUFFICIENT;
V/O DTD. 05.03.2020 NOTICE TO R2(E) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOWED BY THE SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 28.03.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.97/2003 BY
LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BASAVAN BAGEWADI AND
CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN
R.A.NO.64/2005, DATED 11.11.2009 PASSED BY PRL. DIST. JUDGE,
BIJAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 01.03.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the concurrent finding
in O.S.No.97/2003 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Basavana
Bagewadi and R.A.No.64/2005 by the Prl. District Judge,
Bijapur, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be
decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
Sy.No.136/1 measuring 10 acres 31 guntas and
consequential relief. The parties are referred as per their
ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
2. The brief facts are as below:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the
absolute owner of Sy.No.136/1 measuring 10 acres 31
guntas shown by letters ABCD in the plaint hand sketch
and consequential relief of injunction to restrain the
defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff contended that the
RS No.136/1 and RS No.136/2 were formerly numbered as
R.S.No.91/2, 92/3 & 96/1 of Managuli village and in the
year 1951 one of the brother of plaintiff namely Hussain
Pasha sold his 1/3rd share to the plaintiff which is evident
from mutation entry No.9139, 10494 which are at Ex.P4
and Ex.P5 of Managuli village. Therefore, it is contended
that the plaintiff has become owner of 2/3rd share and the
defendant No.1 became the owner of 1/3rd share in the
same. Therefore, the defendant No.1 was owner to the
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
extent of 5 acres 16 gunthas and the division in the land
was made in view of the certification of M.E.No.18249
dated 02.10.1981. Measurements were held with respect
to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 which were
wrongly shown. Therefore, the plaintiff raised objections
and RTC proceedings were initiated. In the meanwhile,
the defendant No.1 sold his 1/3rd share to the defendant
No.2 showing the excess area than the one he actual
possesses which was only 5 acres 16 gunthas. The
defendant No.1 had shown that he is the owner of 6 acres
36 gunthas and executed the sale deed in favour of the
defendant No.12 by taking undue advantage of the said
recital. The defendant No.2 by taking advantage of the
recital in the sale deed started causing obstruct to the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff and therefore the
plaintiff filed the suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant
No.1 did not appear but the defendant No.2 appeared and
filed the written statement. Later the defendant No.1
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
appeared and filed a memo stating that he will adopt the
written statement filed by the defendant No.2. The
defendant No.2 in his written statement contended that he
is the owner in possession of 6 acres 36 gunthas by virtue
of the sale deed executed by defendant No.1. He denied
that the plaintiff is the owner of Southern and East-West
strip measuring 1 acre 20 gunthas, that is the property
which is in dispute, and is included in Survey No.136/1.
he also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the area
mentioning in by letter EFCD in the hand sketch map of
the plaint. He further denied there were wrong entries
regarding measurement of property in view of division as
Sy.No.136/1 and 136/2. He contended that plaintiff was
never in possession of the disputed 1 acre 20 gunthas and
he had purchased the property only after seeing all the
records and confirming that the defendant No.1 was owner
of Sy.No.136/2 measuring 6 acres 36 gunthas. He also
contended that the plaintiff even if had any right in the
suit property, had lost his by virtue of the efflux of time
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
and the defendant No.1 had become owner by adverse
possession.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following
issues were framed by the Trial Court.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
the absolute owner of Sy.No.131/1
measuring 10 acres 31 gunthas sown by
letter ABCD in the plaint sketch?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
possession of disputed 1 acre and 20
gunthas as shown EFCD in the plaint
sketch?
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued
and court fee paid is improper and
incorrect?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief claimed in the suit?
5. What order or decree?
5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P20 were marked. The defendants examined as two
witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 came to
be marked. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
answered the issue No.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and
issue No.3 in the negative and proceeded to decree the
suit as prayed by the plaintiff.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the LRs of the
defendant No.2 approached the first appellate Court in
appeal. Before the Trial Court they reiterated their
contention and submitted that the Trial Court had failed to
consider the fact that plaintiff had admitted about the
actual division of the property in the year 1979 and it
erred in observing that the defendants have admitted that
the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property which was
contrary to the evidence on record. Considering the above
contentions raised among all other contentions which are
also raised before the appellate Court, the appellate Court
issued notice to the respondents. On their appearance
and after hearing the arguments by the rival parties, it
framed the following points for consideration:
- 10 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
POINTS
1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the
plaintiff has got 2/3rd share measuring 10
acres 31 gunthas in Sy.No.136/1 and the
defendant-1 has got 1/3rd share measuring
9 acres 16 gunthas in Sy.No. 136/2 out of
the total of 16 acres 7 gunthas in
Sy.No.136 of Managuli village and that
actual partition took place accordingly?
2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that while
giving wardi under M.E.No.18249 dated
2.8.1979 it was wrongly shown that,
Sy.No.136/1 i.e. old Sy.Nos.91/2 and 92/3
which had fallen to the share of the plaintiff
was measuring 9 acres 11 gunthas instead
of 10 acres 31 gunthas and that
Sy.No.136/2 i.e. Sy.No.96/1 which had
fallen to the share of the defendant-1 was
measuring 6 acres 36 gunthas instead of 5
acres 16 gunthas?
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from
denying the title of the defendants in
respect of the disputed area of 1 acre 20
gunthas shown by letters EFCD in the
plaint hand sketch and whether he has
waived his right in the suit property?
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration and injunction?
6. Whether the trial Court was justified in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff?
- 11 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
7. Whether the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court calls for
interference from this Court?
8. What order?
7. The first appellate Court answered the point
Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 in the affirmative and point Nos.3, 4 and 7
in the negative and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the first
appellate Court, the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 have
approached this Court in second appeal. The appellants
contended that the Courts below are not justified in giving
importance to the mutation entry while granting the relief
of declaration of ownership to the extent of 2/3rd share in
the suit property. They contended that the Courts below
erred in declaring the ownership based on the oral
relinquishment/sale in the absence of any document,
wherein the value of the suit property was more than
Rs.100/-. It was also contended that the plea of adverse
possession was not properly considered by both the Courts
and that the suit was barred by time.
- 12 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the
appellants, the following substantial question of law was
framed by this Court on 20.04.2010.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
1. Whether there is a concept of an oral sale in
Mohamaden Law?
10. The lower Court records have been secured and
on issuance of notice to respondent No.1A to 1F appeared
through their counsel and the remaining respondents did
not appear despite service of notice.
11. The arguments by learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and the appearing respondent were
heard.
12. The plaintiff contends that he is in actual
possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.136/1 measuring 10
acres 31 gunthas and the defendant No.2 is in possession
and enjoyment as owner to the extent of 5 acres 16
gunthas in Sy.No.136/2. It is the specific contention that
- 13 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
earlier these lands were numbered as 91/2, 92/3 and 96/1
and in the year 1957 one of the brothers of the plaintiff
i.e. Hussain Pasha has sold his 1/3rd share and
relinquished his entire right in favour of the plaintiff. He
relies on ME No.9139 and 10494 in order to establish this
sale by Hussain Pasha. Therefore, he contends that the
plaintiff became the owner to the extent of 2/3rd share in
Sy.No.91/2, 92/3 and 96/1 and remaining 1/3rd share was
owned by the defendant No.1.
13. He contends that in the year 1974 when the
Land Reforms Act came into force, the defendant No.1 had
filed form No.11 before the Land Tribunal showing only his
1/3rd share in the entire Sy.No.136 which totally measured
16 acres 7 gunthas. Thus the share of the defendant
No.1 was only to the extent of 5 acres 16 gunthas and
accordingly, thereafter actual division was made in the
land under M.E.No.18249 dated 02.08.1979 which came to
be certified on 02.10.1981. It was shown in the record
that Sy.No.91/2 and 92/3 were involved and it measured
- 14 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
9 acres 11 guntha instead of 10 acres 31 gunthas.
Similarly the RS No.96/1 was numbered as 136/2 wrongly
shown in the measurement as 6 acres 36 gunthas instead
of 5 acres 16 gunthas. Since all these lands were abutting
each other, it was consolidated as block No.136. It is
submitted that there was no partition by measurement but
it was only that the plaintiff was entitled for 2/3rd share
and the defendant No.1 was entitled for 1/3rd share.
Accordingly, a dispute was raised before the revenue
authority and later such rectification has been made.
14. The plaintiff contends that now the defendant
No.2 who is the purchaser from the defendant No.1 is
falsely claiming the portion of 1 acre 20 gunthas taking
advantage of the recital in the sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 that the property was measuring 6 acres
36 gunthas. It is his specific contention that defendant
No.1 had no title in respect of 6 acres 36 gunthas but he
was owner only to the extent of 5 acres 16 gunthas.
- 15 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
15. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have denied these
contentions of the plaintiff. The Crux of the matter is
whether the defendant No.1 had title to the extent of 6
acres 36 gunthas which was infact in excess by 1 acre 20
guntahs over which the plaintiff is now claiming his title.
16. The voluminous documents produced by the
plaintiff include the Form No.11 submitted by the plaintiff
and the defendant No.1 and also the mutation entries.
The Ex.P4 which happens to be the mutation entry on
which is the plaintiff relied shows that on 13.10.1957 the
sale of 1/3rd undivided share of brother of the plaintiff
Hussain Pasha was taken note of by the revenue authority.
This mutation entry mentioned that on 20.06.1951 a
registered sale deed was executed in respect of 1/3rd
share of Hussain Pasha. Therefore 1/3rd share of Hussain
Pasha in Sy.No.96/1, 92/3 and another survey number
(which is not visible) stood transferred to the plaintiff. Not
only that, the subsequent entry which is at Ex.P5 also
show such relinquishment of 1/3rd share is being entered
- 16 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
into records. The Ex.P6, do not take note of the fact that
2/3rd share his owned by the plaintiff but it refers to the
earlier survey numbers and states that 9 acres 9 gunthas
is owned by the plaintiff and 6 acres 29 gunthas is owned
by the defendant No.1. It is this mutation entry which
was objected by the plaintiff and RTS proceedings was
initiated. It is also pertinent to note that the other
documents produced by the plaintiff, which also include
the decree in O.S.No.62/1932 is also produced at Ex.P9.
The survey records are also produced by the plaintiff at
Ex.P18. The order of the Assistant Commissioner produced
at Ex.P20 shows the extent of land owned by the plaintiff
and it is clear that it should have been 1/3rd share but not
as per the extent of the land mentioned in the mutation
entry.
17. The perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court
discloses that it has considered that the defendant No.1
could have claimed only 1/3rd share in the entire property
and even he had made such a declaration before the
- 17 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
competent authority while seeking occupancy right as the
tenant under the Land Reforms Act. It also noticed that
the defendant No.1 has not entered the witness box to
rebut the claim of the plaintiff and therefore it disbelieved
the contention of the defendant No.1. It has noticed that
the mutation entry as per Ex.P4 unequivocally mentioned
about the sale deed and it was acted upon by the revenue
authority in entering the name of plaintiff towards 1/3rd
share of Hussain Pasha. Therefore, the Trial Court came
to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 had no right,
title or interest in respect of 6 acres 36 gunthas claimed
by him. What was owned and possessed by the defendant
No.1 was only 5 acres 16 gunthas and therefore it decreed
the suit of the plaintiff.
18. Further the Trial Court has also noticed that the
plea of adverse possession was not proved by the
defendant No.1. Now here defendant No.1 had admitted
that the plaintiff was owner of the property and therefore
the plea of adverse possession could not have been raised.
- 18 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
In fact, it was the defendant No.2 who had raised the
question of adverse possession, but in support of the
contention of the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 did
not enter the witness box. Therefore, the claim regarding
adverse possession was rejected by the Trial Court.
19. The first appellate Court in its judgment has
also dealt with the question of limitation which was raised
by the appellants. In para 27 of its judgment, it consider
Article 58 of the Limitation Act and notes that the
limitation commences when right to sue to accrues. The
plaintiff had issued the paper publication as per Ex.P19
and even then the defendant No.2 had purchased the
property from defendant No.1 and tried to interfere with
the enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the suit
came to be filed and as such, the right to sue had accrued
to the plaintiff when his title has been denied on his
property encroached by the defendant No.2. Therefore,
the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court shows that they had considered the long
- 19 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
standing mutation entry and also the possession and
enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the sale deed alleged to have been
executed by Hussain Pasha in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the 1/3rd share has not been produced and
therefore such a decree could not have been passed by
the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. It is
pertinent to note that even though there is no such
concept of oral sale under the Mohammedan law, it is
nobody's case that there was oral sale. The plaintiff
categorically contended that Hussain Pasha had sold his
1/3rd share to the plaintiff but he is unable to produce the
sale deed. However, the revenue records which came
into existence at an undisputed point of time as per Ex.P4
categorically mentioned that such entry has been made on
the basis of a registered sale deed. On the basis of such
entry, even the revenue proceedings have taken place and
no were it is contended by the defendant No.1 that there
- 20 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
was no such sale deed by Hussain Pasha. The order of
Assistant Commissioner at Ex.P20 dated 25.07.1985
depict the same. Therefore, the fact that there was a
registered sale deed by Hussain Pasha in favour of the
plaintiff was recorded as per Ex.P4 in the year 1957. Now
the defendant No.2 is questioning such mutation entry of
the year 1957 which allegedly mentioned the sale deed of
the year 1951 by Hussain Pasha. In my considered
opinion, it was never the contention of the plaintiff that it
was an oral sale nor such evidence was let in. I have
traversed the plaint averments made by the plaintiff in the
afore mentioned paragraphs. Therefore, the question of
considering the concept of the oral sale under
Mohammedan law do not arise.
21. Secondly, the long standing mutation entries
were never questioned by the defendant No.1, much less
the legal heirs of Hussain Pasha, whose right came to an
end. Therefore, the substantial question is not in respect
the concept of the oral sale.
- 21 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
22. It appears that the only question which could
have been raised is regarding the limitation. In fact the
PW1 admit that the mutation mentioning that the
defendant No.1 owns to the extent of 6 acres 36 gunthas
and the plaintiff is owning 9 acres 9 gunthas was known to
him. However, there was no interference regarding the
enjoyment of the property. As noted supra, the question
of limitation has been considered by the first appellate
Court in a proper perspective. The plaintiff came to know
that the defendant No.1 is alienating the property and
therefore he has issued public caution notice about the
enjoyment of the property. When the defendant No.2
started obstructing the enjoyment after purchasing the
property, and denied the ownership of the plaintiff to the
extent of 1 acre 20 gunthas, definitely there was cause of
action which gave rise to the present suit. It is pertinent
to note that though in the cross examination of PW1 he
says that he was in the knowledge that his plea to enter
his name in respect of 10 acres 31 guntas was rejected by
- 22 -
RSA No. 7026 of 2010
the revenue authority, but such rejection to effect
mutation entry was in respect of the alleged partition
claimed by defendant No.1 and as such it cannot give rise
to denial of the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, I am
unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that there is any error which
has been committed by the Trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court.
23. For these reasons, I do not find any substantial
question of law which needs to be dealt with and the one
framed by this Court at the time of admission is no more
relevant. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
