Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyalal vs Dayashankar Mishra on 2 February, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 417 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHAIYALAL S/O LATE SHRI RUDRABHAN RAM, AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE BAIRATHPUR P.S. LAUR TEHSIL MAUGANJ
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHANANJAY CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DAYASHANKAR MISHRA S/O NOT MENTION,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONWARSHA PT. H.NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TAHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAVINDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMLAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H.
NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL
NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJESH MISHRA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
3.1 SMT. SAVITA MISHRA W/O LATE SHRI RAJESH
M I S H R A R/O VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST
SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S.
AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.2. HARSHIT MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAJESH
M I S H R A R/O VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST
SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S.
AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.3. ARPIT MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAJESH MISHRA
R/O VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT.
2
H. NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL
NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ARVIND MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SANGEETA D/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. GEETANJALI D/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRADHANJALI D/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. BHEEMSEN S/O SHRI KAMLA PRASAD MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. KARUNA PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE RAMGOPAL
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAMADEVI W/O RAMGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 62
Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST
SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S.
AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. KASHINATH S/O LATE SHRI RAJARAM, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HANKARIYA POST
SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT R.I. NAIGADHI P.S.
AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3
12. THAKUR PRASAD MISHRA S/O HARINATH
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HANKARIYA POST SONVARSHA PT. H. NO. KOT
R.I. NAIGADHI P.S. AND TEHSIL NAIGADHI
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS. 1 TO 3 AND 8 TO 9 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed against the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa in Appeal No. 158/Appeal/2016-17 by
which the orders passed by the Courts below have been set aside and the
application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of Will
has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents
had also filed a suit for declaration of their title on the basis of Will which has
been dismissed in default. Therefore, the revenue authorities did not commit any
mistake by mutating the name of the petitioner on the strength of Will
3. In reply, it is submitted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma that the suit
has been restored to its original file by order dated 04.12.2021 passed in MJC
No. 731/2014 and there is an temporary injunction order against the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Whether the revenue authorities have a jurisdiction to mutate the
name of a person on the basis of a Will or not is no more res integra. The
Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. by order
dated 6-9-2021 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 13146 of 2021 has held as under :
6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997)
7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect
of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of
property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes
title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title.
Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting
land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of
decisions thereafter.
6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner,
(2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that
an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person
whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the
revenue records or jamabandi have only "œfiscal
purpose"ÂÂÂ, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no
ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is
further observed that so far as the title of the property is
concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.
Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman
Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v.
Tajuddin (2008) 8SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of JandK,
(2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v.
State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B.
Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo
Kambekar v. Arthur Import and Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC
191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259;
and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L.
Venkatesh Reddy, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784 has held as under:
8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, the first defendant did not
relinquish or release his right in respect of the half-share in the
suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case
pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the
High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant
divested himself of the title and possession of half-share in
suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or
extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the
purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of
this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are
extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22)
"21. We have considered the rival submissions and we
are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention
that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a
result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga
Devi lost her title from that date and possession also
was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was
effected. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Pattanaik, J.,
speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows:
(SCC p. 227, para 7) '7.......Mutation of a property in
the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor
has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the
person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the
land revenue in question. The learned Additional District
Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that
mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her
favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire
judgment.'
22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the
widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit
property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-
1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below
that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested
herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be
so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming
into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a
full owner, had every right to deal with the suit
properties in any manner she desired."
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High
Court erred in concluding that the first defendant by his
conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his
half-share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion
is liable to be set aside.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial
Commr., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 has held as under :
9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not
interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not
confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-
rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or
jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land
revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such
entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only
be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v.
Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in
regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court
of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere
with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.
8. Thus, it is clear that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to
mutate the name of a person on the basis of Will. If the propounder of a will
wants to take advantage of a Will purportedly executed in his favour, then he
has to seek a declaration from the Civil Court.
9. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the civil suit
filed by the respondent for declaration of a Will as null and void has already
been dismissed. However, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that
the suit was dismissed in default and accordingly, MJC NO. 713/2014 was
allowed by order dated 04.12.2021 and the suit has been restored to its original
file.
10. In view of the statement made by counsel for the respondents to the
effect that the suit regarding the Will in question is already pending between the
parties, as well as in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Jitendra Singh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion
that the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis
of Will is not maintainable.
11. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the
revenue authorities have given certain findings with regard to the Will in
question, therefore, the said findings may prejudice the mind of the Civil Court.
12. The apprehension expressed by the Counsel for the petitioner is
misconceived. This Court has already held that the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to entertain an application for mutation on the basis of Will. Thus,
the findings given by the revenue authorities whether in favour of Will or against
the Will is without jurisdiction and such finding would be a nullity.
13. Under these circumstances, it is made clear that the trial Court shall
not get prejudiced or influenced by any of the findings given by the revenue
authorities and shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence which would come
on record.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Shanu
Digitally signed by SHANU
RAIKWAR
Date: 2023.02.02 17:21:57
+05'30'
