Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Varsha Ranawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                                     1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT INDORE
                                                               WP No. 6211 of 2022
                                            (SMT. VARSHA RANAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                Dated : 24-03-2022
                                      Mr Prasanna Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                      Mr Valmik Shakargyan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents

No. 1 and 2/State.

Heard.

02. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08-11-2021 Annexure-P-1 passed by the Administrator Nagar Panchayat, Khilchipur, District Rajgarh, whereby the name of respondent No.4 has been directed to be mutated over the property in question.

03. One Ramkrishnaji S/o Ram Narayan was the owner of residential House bearing No.38, Ward No. 8 (9) Rajmaahal Marg in Khilchipur District Rajgarh, who died on 06-06-2016. The petitioner is daughter in law whereas respondent No.4 is daughter of late Ram Krishna.

04. As per the petitioner prior to his death Ram Krishna has executed a will on 22-01-2013 in her favour as regards the disputed house. Respondent No.4 also fraudulently got executed a will executed from Ramkrishnaji on 04-09-2015 in her favour. Applications were submitted by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 before respondent No.3 for their mutation over the disputed house. A Civil suit bearing No. 11-A/2021 as regards title to the House is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 before Civil Judge Class-II, Khilchipur. By letter dated 15-03-2021 respondent No.3 intimated respondent No.2 that mutation shall be carried out after decision from the competent Court, but by the impugned order the application filed by respondent No.4 for mutation has been allowed on the ground that she is the daughter i.e. natural heir of RamKrishna.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since dispute as regards title to the house is already pending between the parties before the Civil Court and Signature Not Verified SAN as respondent No.3 had itself stated that mutation shall be effected after decision of the said suit, the impugned order is apparently illegal and without jurisdiction.

On strength of said order respondent No.4 has started asserting her title to the house and has started demanding rent from the tenants residing therein. There is also every likelihood of respondent No.4 alienating the house.

06. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. There appears to be a Civil suit pending between petitioner and respondent No.4 as regards title to the disputed House. Both of them are claiming title under respective wills executed in their favour by Ramkrishanji. The genuineness of the wills shall be decided in Civil Suit. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is the daughter and natural heir of Ram Krishanaji hence mutation of her name over the house cannot be faulted with. In any case her mutation shall be subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit pending between her and the petitioner and shall be affected on the basis of the decision to be rendered therein.

07. It is well settled that mutation itself does not confer any title to the property over which the same is directed. It is only for fiscal purposes. Thus, the apprehension of petitioner that mutation of respondent No.4 would enable her to alienate the house or claim tile there too or shall enable her to receive rent from the tenants of the house or seek their eviction is ill-founded. As the impugned order is only an order directing mutation of respondent No.4 to the house, it cannot be said that her title to the same has been declared enabling her to alienate the same or contend that tenant residing therein are her tenants even if they had been induced therein by the petitioner.

08. Thus, in view of the observations as made herein above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Petition is accordingly disposed off.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RASHMI PRASHANT Date: 2022.03.31 16:19:04 IST