Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. The aforesaid judgement is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in aforesaid premises, it has to be deduced that the suit properties were ancestral properties at the hands of the deceased father which was never partitioned and he has no right to execute the will in favour of any of his three sons and, therefore, the plaintiff has a right in the suit properties to the extent of 1/4th + 1/20th share.

34. It is feebly contended by Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate of the defendants, that there was an oral partition amongst the plaintiff and the defendants at the time of mutating the entry in the revenue record as the plaintiff has given consent. For that purpose Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate has relied upon the revenue record and the mutation entries made in that behalf. As per the same, the suit properties were mutated in the names of the defendants.

35. It is settled proposition of law that the revenue record has no evidentiary value. They are made only for the fiscal purpose and, title to the properties cannot be decided on the basis of the mutation entries effected in the revenue record. Such entries are required to be effected in view of the provisions of Section 135C of the Code. Mutation entries have only presumptive value as provided under Section 135J of the Code, which reads as under:

"135J presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights and register of mutations:

37. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sankalchand J. Patel (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court has held that; it is settled law that mutation entries are effected only to enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the properties and that the right, title and interest as to the properties should be established dehors the entries. The mutation entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest in the entries.

38. In view of the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in above referred to judgement, there is no manner of doubt that, if any dispute is not raised while effecting the mutation entry, it will not adversely affect the right of the plaintiff to challenge the said mutation entry at a subsequent stage. If the title to the land is claimed on the basis of such mutation entry, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question as to title irrespective of such mutation entry effected in the revenue record. In the present case the presumption has been rebutted by oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in the case. Even in the oral evidence the concerned defendants have admitted this fact. Once the question as to title to the suit land is raised the learned Civil Judge is required to decide the question as to title on the basis of the evidence that is led in the suit independently of the mutation entry and in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the mutation entry effected in the revenue record will be required to be either cancelled or suitably modified as per the decision rendered by the Civil Court and therefore the defendants are not entitled to raise such contention that the plaintiff is estopped from raising such a dispute in the suit as he has not raised the dispute at the time when the mutation entry was effected. In this view of the matter, the contention advanced by Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate of the defendants, deserves to be rejected and, accordingly, it is rejected.