Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9595

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants are in appeal.

4. Sri.Girish Yadawad, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court ignored vital admissions relating to the knowledge of the plaintiffs with respect to certification of mutation entry in the name of Siddappa which was certified in the year 2003. He also invited attention of this Court to the admission in the evidence of PW.1's cross-examination and would contend that the evidence would disclose that the plaintiffs had knowledge about the certification of the mutation entry in the year 2003 and the suit is filed in the year 2013, as such the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction is barred by limitation. He would also submit that the defendants have led enough evidence to establish that they are in possession of the property and long standing entry in the property records would disclose that they are in possession. Since they are in possession of the NC: 2023:KHC-D:9595 property, the trial Court could not have granted the relief of injunction.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no admission by the plaintiffs in the cross-examination relating to the knowledge of the certification of mutation entry in the year 2003. It is their specific contention that they had no knowledge about the certification of mutation entry till 2012 and though it was certified in 2003, it was one without notice to the plaintiffs. Thus, they would contend that the cause of action arose only in the year 2012 and suit filed in 2012 is in time.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9595 had knowledge about certification of mutation entry in the year 2003. At the most, the statement made in the cross- examination by PW.1 can be construed to hold that the mutation entry was certified in the year 2003 in the name of Siddappa and the statement made in para No.4 of the cross-examination would again indicate that the plaintiffs have questioned the said mutation by filing an appeal before the Court where the suit is pending.

11. Merely because the party has referred the suit as an appeal, it cannot be construed that an appeal was filed before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner challenging the mutation entry. There is nothing on record to show that the mutation entry was certified with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Moreover, alleged mutation entry in the name of Siddappa is based on the alleged Will of Laxmawwa. It is well settled position of law that the Revenue Court cannot effect mutation based on the Will when the Will is not produced before the Court. That being the position, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is