Madhya Pradesh High Court
Murarilal vs Munnibai on 19 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 423 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MURARILAL S/O SHRI BAHCHULAL TIWARI, AGE 54
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O RAI KI PALI,
TEHSIL GOHAD, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MADHUR BHARGAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUNNIBAI W/O SHRI RAMESH PATHAK, R/O
DATAWALI, TEHSIL ATER, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH) PRESENTLY R/O NAWADA
BAGH, NEAR WATER WORKS, BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SATYAWATI W/O SHRI SURESHBABU, R/O
VILLAGE LILOI, TAHSIL GORMI, DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) PRESENTLY R/O
NEAR PANI KI TANKI, OPPOSITE SABJI MANDI,
PINTO PARK, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRAKASHWATI W/O SHRI RAMVARAN, R/O
GOHADI, TAHSIL GOHAD, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH) PRESENTLY R/O GOHADI
GATE, GOHAD, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge is made to the judgment and order dated 26.9.2020 passed by
Additional Collector, District Bhind in Case No.0090/2019-20/Nigrani, titled as
Murarilal vs. Munnibai and others and order dated 29.05.2019 passed by
Tehsildar, Gormi in Case No.63/2017-18/A-6 titled as Murarilal vs. Munnidevi
and others.
2. It appears that Plots Survey Nos.202, 203, 469, 470 area 4.94 Hectare
situated in Village Shyampura Tehsil Gormi District Bhind was recorded in the
name of deceased Lajjaram who died on 3.6.2018. Petitioner moved an
application before Tahsildar stating that elder brother of his father, Lajjaram
died on 3.6.2018. During his lifetime, he executed a registered will-deed in
favour of petitioner and after the death of elder brother of his father, Lajjaram,
he was in cultivative possession of the land. Tehsildar without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had mutated the names of respondents,
however, later on the said mutation order was set aside and petitioner was
granted opportunity of hearing. Respondents did not cross-examine the
witnesses of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 25.9.2019 Court below
i.e., Tahsildar, Gormi closed the right of the petitioner to adduce evidence and
dismissed his application filed under Section 32 of MPLRC. Being aggrieved
with the order of Tahsildar dated 29.5.2019, petitioner filed a Case
No.0090/2019-20/Nigrani, (Murarilal vs. Munnibai and others) which came to be
dismissed, upholding the order dated 29.5.2019 passed by Tahsildar. Both the
orders are under challenge in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the
record.
4. Admittedly, property was recorded in the name of one Lajjaram who
died on 3.6.2018. It is alleged that during lifetime of Lajjaram, 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 Lajjaram shall be subject to the outcome of the
Civil Suit, if it is filed by the petitioner.
1 0 . 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
2024.02.22
17:22:52 +05'30'
