Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

No.2193 has recorded a finding in the negative i.e. against the plaintiff. In other words, according to the trial Court, this mutation entry No.2193, which is in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 7, is legal and valid. This mutation entry No.2193 is on record, it is at Exhibit-35. This mutation entry

-:(16):-

. It is well settled in law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish title in relation to immoveable property. Mutation entry do have a presumptive value as laid down under section 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the case on hand, this mutation pertains to the agricultural lands i.e. suit properties. Will deed is not on record. In the absence of very document of will on record, and proof thereof, in view of section 68, it was not legal and proper for the revenue authorities to effect such mutation in the record of rights. Fact that plaintiff did not challenge this mutation, in my view, is not material for the simple reason that it was for deceased Shankarrao or defendant Nos.6 and 7 to seek such declaration from the competent civil Court that deceased Shamrao had acquired title to the suit property, based on the will deed allegedly

-:(17):-

executed by Shamrao. Shankarrao or defendant Nos.6 and 7 could have obtained probate. Indisputably, there is no declaration by the competent civil Court, based on the alleged will deed by deceased Shamrao in favour of Shankarrao. This issue is very crucial from the view point that unless deceased Shankarrao gets valid title to the suit properties, based on proof of such will, there is no question for inheriting title to the suit properties by defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7. It is well settled in law that no person can pass on title, which he does not hold. Another mutation is mutation entry No.4 at Exhibit-36. This mutation entry No.4 is relied upon by defendant Nos.6 and 7.

-:(24):-

Maharashtra) has to send copy of index No.2 (detailing the nature of transaction, parties to the transaction, description of the agricultural land/ immoveable property, amount of consideration etc.) to the village officer and Tahsildar wherein agricultural land is situated. The village officer and ultimately Tahsildar of the Taluka are under obligation to mutate the name of purchaser of agricultural land in the record of rights. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that there is no such mutation in favour of the plaintiff. The mutation entry only clarifies the reason for mutating name of a particular person in the record of rights of the agricultural land. Oridinarily mutation entry itself does not become a source of title. Neither such mutation entry can be read as destructive of the title of a particular person. In the case on hand, even though the name of the plaintiff is not mutated to the record of rights i.e. 7/12 extract, it cannot be said that valid title which plaintiff has acquired by registered sale deed dated 21st December, 1971, has been extinguished only because of inaction on the part of the plaintiff to get her name mutated to the record of rights uless plea of adverse possession set up by defendants is proved. In the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, I have not accepted the findings of the Courts below that defendant