Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs Vijay Krishna Mishra on 17 December, 2008
5. The plaintiff admitted that the land originally belonged to
his father and his three uncles, but claimed that the land was allotted
to his father. He and his two sisters survived his deceased-father but
the parties being Adiwasi, the sisters are not entitled for any share.
The suit land was mutated in the name of plaintiff's father and
therefore the plaintiff alone is the owner. He also submitted that,
defendant No. 1 unlawfully entered his name in the revenue record
in 1988 and on the basis of revenue entries only, he is held to be in
possession and therefore the suit came to be dismissed. He submitted
that, only revenue record will not be proof of possession of defendant
No. 1. The defendant No. 1's failure to prove the source for effecting
the mutation in his name has not been proved. He has produced
insufficiently stamped unregistered Mortgage Deed. Mr Savale,
learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:49:53 :::
3 Sr7SA480.2018
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs.
Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 4 Mh.L.J. 349 to submit
that, insufficiently stamped document cannot be considered even for
collateral purpose. When defendant No. 1 failed to establish his entry
referable to lawful source, in the suit land, the 7/12 extract cannot
prove his possession.