Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The first Appellate Court has referred to the admission given by PW 1 Laxmibai that she never cultivated the suit land. The first Appellate Court held that name of defendant No. 6 was recorded under Mutation Entry No. 448. The first Appellate Court, however, regretted that Mutation Entry No. 448 is neither placed on record either by defendant No. 6, 8 or plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court at the end of paragraph No. 20 concluded that, "....If we consider the certified copies of 7/12 extracts and the mutation entry produced by the plaintiffs that revenue record produced by the contesting defendants, there is a room to believe that revenue record produced by plaintiffs is suspicious one."

10. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are male children of Laxmibai and defendant No. 7. The partition is alleged. This partition is dated 16-2-1970. This oral evidence of the plaintiffs regarding partition is reinforced by Mutation Entry No. 430. Undisputedly, under the provisions of Hindu Law, oral partition is permissible. This is an usual mode in agrarian Hindu community of oral partition of the agricultural lands referring to their local names, if parties to the partition are illiterate persons. Such oral partition is being reported to the revenue authorities for effecting the mutation. Such report can be under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("Code of 1966"). Such report is an acquisition of right to mutate under Section 150 of the Code of 1966. Such mutation entry, on its due certification under Section 150 of the Code of 1966 gets presumptive value under Section 157 of the Code of 1966. In the present case, grievance is raised on behalf of the defendants that Mutation Entry No. 430 is not certified by the competent authority. Certification of mutation is provided under Section 150 of the Code of 1966. Relevant provisions of Sections 149 and 150 of the Code of 1966 are reproduced hereinbelow:

Provided that, entries in respect of which there is no dispute may be tested and certified by Circle Inspector:
Provided further that no such entries shall be certified unless notice in that behalf is served on the parties concerned.
Section 150 deals with the certification of the mutation. If mutation entry is disputed, it is recorded in the register of mutations and has to be referred to the Tahsildar for decision. Such mutations are to be certified by the officer not below the rank of Avval Karkun. However, the mutation entries which are not disputed, deliberately, have been provided to be certified by the officer, namely; Circle Inspector as provided under the first proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 150 of the Code. Here, it is not a case of defendant No. 7 that there was/is any dispute regarding partition claimed by the plaintiffs on 16-2-1970. Therefore, there was no occasion for recording Mutation Entry No. 430 in the register of disputed mutations. It was, therefore, a mutation which could be certified by the Circle Inspector. Said Mutation Entry No. 430 is, therefore, legally certified by the Circle Inspector on 16-12-1970. Here, it is to be noted that this mutation is not challenged by defendant No. 6 or defendant No. 8, even after filing of the suit. The first Appellate Court did not refer to Section 149 and Section 150 of the Code of 1966. The finding of the first Appellate Court regarding Mutation Entry No. 430 is, therefore, perverse.

Learned counsel for the defendant No. 8, thereafter, referred to 7/12 extracts - Exhibits 17/2 to 17/7. Exhibit 17/2 is for the year 1970-71 and in the crop cultivation column, name of defendant No. 6 is recorded. Date of sale deed in favour of defendant No. 6 is 14-6-1971. This 7/12 extract also refers to the name of defendant No. 7 as recorded in the occupancy column of 7/12 extract. It seems that said entry was effected under Mutation No. 448. The trial Court has observed that this mutation entry is not produced on record by defendant. The first Appellate Court has also observed that neither party has placed on record this Mutation Entry No. 448. This entry is in the name of defendant No. 6. It is for the defendant No. 6 to explain as to when and why his name was recorded in the occupancy column of the suit property in 1970-71 i.e. prior to sale deed dated 14-6-1971. If this mutation entry is lawfully entered into and at the instance of defendant No. 6 , he should have placed on record, said Mutation Entry No. 448. If this mutation entry has no relevance or foundation or is not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Code of 1966, in that circumstances, a person benefited by this mutation entry may avoid production thereof. Apart from this aspect, defendant No. 6 could have explained in his pleadings the evidence that on particular date prior to 14-6-1971 he was inducted into the suit property as purchaser or in any other capacity thereof.