Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(12) Reference has also been made by Mr. Malhotra to the case of Thakur Nirman Singh and others v. Thakur Lal Rudra Pariah Narain Singh and others Air 1926 Privy Council 100(2), wherein it was held that the proceedings for the mutation of names are not judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. The aforesaid case also did not deal with a mutation order incorporating a compromise and as such the dictum laid down in that case would not be applicable to the present case. Another case, on which reliance has been. placed on behalf of the appellant, is a Full Bench decision of Kalawati v. Sri Krishna and others Air (31) 1944 Oudh 493. The learned Judges in that case dealt with the question as to whether an order of the mutation Court embodying the petition of compromise affecting immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.00 required registration. It was held that since the order of the mutation Court merely stated the fact of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and did not cause a change of legal relations to the property nor declare any right in that property, it did not require registration. It would appear from the above that the question involved in that case was substantially different and 'as such the above case camnot be of any material assistance.