Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheetal vs Prakash Chand on 16 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 4799 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHEETAL S/O NAND KUMAR JAIN, R/O VILLAGE
APROCH, TEHSIL KAILARAS, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKHILESH DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
PRAKASH CHAND S/O KASTUR CHAND JAIN, R/O
KOLARAS, AT PRESENT R/O BHITARWAR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge is made to the judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.568/15-16/
Appeal, Sheetal vs. Prakash Chandra and order dated 20.05.2016 passed by
SDO, Kolaras, District Shivpuri in Case No.39/2014-15/Appeal titled as
Prakash Chandra vs. Sheetal.
2. It appears that Plots Survey Nos.955 area 0.25 Hectare situated in
Village Kumhraua Tahsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri was recorded in the name of
respondent's father Kastur Chand Jain who died leaving behind four sons and
five daughters. Petitioner moved an application before Tahsildar stating that his
grandfather Kastur Chand Jain died on 3.1.1995. During his lifetime, he
executed a registered will-deed in favour of petitioner and after the death of his
grandfather Kastur Chand Jain, he was in cultivative possession of the land.
Court below, i.e., Tahsildar, Kolaras mutated name of petitioner on the basis of
registered will-deed. Being aggrieved with the order of Tahsildar dated
1.10.2014, respondent filed a Case No.39/2014-15/Appeal Mal, (Prakash
Chandra vs. Sheetal) which came to be allowed, setting aside the order dated
1.10.2014 passed by Tahsildar and Tahsildar was further directed that names of
all the legal heirs of Kastur Chand be recorded in the revenue record. Being
aggrieved with the order of SDO, petitioner filed an appeal before Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which came to be heard and decided
by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior vide order dated
2.8.2017 dismissing the appeal and maintaining the order of SDO. Both the
orders are under challenge in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, property was recorded in the name of one Kastur Chand
Jain who died leaving behind him four sons and five daughters. It is alleged that
during lifetime of Kastur Chandra Jain, he executed a registered will in favour of
petitioner. It is not the Revenue Court but it is for the Civil Court that has right
to decide whether a will was executed or not, whether it is right or wrong.
5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the revenue
authorities have jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of
Will or not?
6. The question is no more res integra.
7. 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."
8. Thus, it is clear that if the beneficiary wants to take advantage of a
Will, then he has to seek a declaration from the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the name
on the basis of Will.
9. It is made clear that the mutation in the names of all the legal
representatives of deceased Kastur Chand Jain shall be subject to the outcome
of the Civil Suit, if it is filed by the petitioner.
10. It is also made clear that since the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of Will, therefore
any finding given by the revenue authority with regard to the genuineness of the
Will shall not prejudice or influence the mind of the Civil Judge.
11. With aforesaid observation, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)
JUDGE
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2024.02.17
18:16:06 +05'30'
