Parwati Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 7723 MP

                          1                  M.P.No.163/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2023
               MISC. PETITION No. 163 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

1.    PARWATI BAI D/O LATE RAMPRASAD
      YADAV, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O
      KAIMORI    TASHIL    PATAN    DISTT.
      JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.    MAMTA BAI D/O LATE RAMPRASAD
      YADAV W/O JAWAHAR @ JHALLU YADAV,
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
      TORI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    SIYA BAI D/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV
      W/O BINDU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 38
      YEARS, R/O VILLAGE POLA, TEHSIL
      MAJHOLI, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
4.    ASHA BAI D/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV
      W/O CHHOTU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 36
      YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TORI, TEHSIL AND
      DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS)

AND

1.    JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV S/O POORANLAL
      YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
      VILLAGE KUSMI MANGARH TAHSIL
      JABERA DISTT. DAMOH M.P. (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    GANGA BAI @GANGO BAI D/O LATE
                                2                     M.P.No.163/2023



     RAMPRASAD YADAV W/O POORANLAL
     YADAV, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
     VILLAGE VIJAYNAGAR, TEHSIL JABERA,
     DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                   ORDER

This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar in Case No.55/A- 6/2022-2023.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents filed an application before the Tahsildar for mutation of their names on the basis of "Will" purportedly executed by the Ramprasad. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar by order dated 11.01.2022 passed in Case No.428/A-6/2021-2022 and the names of all the legal representatives of Ramprasad were directed to be mutated.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the SDO, which was registered as Case No.86/A-6/2021- 2022 and the said appeal was also dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the SDO, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar, which has been allowed by order dated 04.01.2023 passed in Case No.55/A-6/2022-2023.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that it is well established principle of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to direct mutation of the names on the basis of a "Will". If the beneficiary of the "Will" wants to take advantage of the same, then he has to seek declaration from the Civil Court and the genuineness of the will cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities.

6. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.13146/2021 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 "fiscal purpose", 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) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (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 & 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.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. Thus, it is clear that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness/ fakeness of a "Will". If a propounder of a "Will" wants to take advantage of the said document, then he has to establish his title by instituting a suit before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

12. Accordingly the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar in Case No.55/A- 6/2022-2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar is hereby set aside.

13. Liberty is granted to the respondents that in case, if they want to establish their title on the basis of "Will", then they can institute a suit before a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. It is made clear that if any suit is filed, then the same shall be decided strictly on the basis of

evidence, which would come on record without getting influenced and or prejudiced by any of the findings given by the revenue authorities.

14. With aforesaid observation, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

vinay* Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2023.05.12 19:38:11 +05'30'