Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mutation entry in Sh. Jai Singh vs Sh. Inder Singh on 22 February, 2022Matching Fragments
26. It is further contended that the Mother and the Sisters names were mutated even after a specific bar under Section 50 of the Act. However, the title to the said property on the strength of mutation entries in the revenue records made when the plaintiff was minor, does not hold any value in as much as the mutation entries do not confer title on a person, whose names appear in record of rights and entries in the revenue records have only fiscal purpose. The mutation entries does not create/extinguish any right in the property. It is further contended that the civil court has also jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the same is not barred by the provisions of the Act. In this regard reliance is placed upon Anand Prakash & Ors. v. Ram Kala & Ors." 167 (2010) DLT 225,
39. It may be noted that the contention of the Counsel for the plaintiff is that mutation entries recorded in the Revenue Record did not confer title and the Mother and the Sister, being not the male decedent, were not having right in the said property Page no. 24 of 47 CS no. 332/2016 Jai Singh v. Inder Singh & Ors. Date of Decision : 22.02.2022 owned by the deceased. It may be relevant to state that there is no dispute regarding the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.L. Reddy (supra) that mutation entries did not confer title. However, the said case law is distinguishable from the facts of present case in as much as in that case, mutation was entered into the name of his son on the consent given by his father as father and son both being classI legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to 1/2 share each of the properties of the deceased and, thereafter, father challenged the title of his son on the basis of the said mutation. However, the legal heirs of the deceased were recorded as bhumidar in the revenue record by the Revenue Officer as per law under the Act and the plaintiff was supposed to challenged the said mutation as per the rules made in this regard under the Act. The contention of the Counsel for defendant is that said mutation was entered into the name of the LRs on the basis of will left by the deceased, however, there is no material on record in support of this contention. Therefore, this contention deserved to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
Page no. 43 of 47 CS no. 332/2016 Jai Singh v. Inder Singh & Ors. Date of Decision : 22.02.2022
59. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the Mother herself became Bhumidhar and therefore entitled to execute gift deed in favour of defendant. So far as ration of H.L. Reddy (supra) is concerned, suffice is to say that plaintiff may be held not to be bound by the principles of acquiescence, however, as observed above plaintiff did not challenge mutation despite the fact that mutation has preemptive value and act of not challenging the entry of the mutation entry divest plaintiff to claim any relief. These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
4 were entitled to succeed the said property.
Though, not quoted reliance is placed upon Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjay Kumar, judgment passed in Civil Appeal no. 2888/2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed that the period of limitation for seeking declaration of a mutation entry as null and void was only three years as provided under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.
64. Accordingly, the right of the Mother to execute the gift deed in favour of defendant no. 5, if any, was on the basis of said mutation entry but the plaintiff undoubtedly, even if suit of plaintiff is decreed for the relief of declaration qua the gift deed and mutation entry of the year 2007 is set aside and no order is passed qua said mutation entry of the year 1964, there will be an ambiguous position to the effect that, on the one hand, right of the Mother in the suit property will be there in revenue record as being successor of the deceased and at the same time, her right to transfer the suit property Page no. 46 of 47 CS no. 332/2016 Jai Singh v. Inder Singh & Ors. Date of Decision : 22.02.2022 by way of gift deed and subsequent mutation would be declared as null & void. It appears that plaintiff has cleverly omitted the relief regarding mutation in the year1964 as being aware that said relief would be apparently barred by limitation.