also not in dispute that mutation
entries were made in the name of both the plaintiff and
defendant from the date of grant till ... also
retained. The mutation entries were also made in respect of
the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and in respect
of the remaining
suit property from the father of plaintiff and he also produced
mutation entry No. 73 as also the mutation entry no. 74 dated ... title. Learned appellate Judge, however, further observed that from
the mutation entry, one thing was certain that the transaction was
entered into between the father
property. On the
basis of the application given by the plaintiff mutation
entry No.4145 of Madhewada village was made deleting
the names of defendants ... order, dated 26.09.1988 allowed the appeal
and cancelled the mutation entry No.4145. It is in those
circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file
petitioners, vide mutation no.103 on 20.05.1960. It was thereafter that Patwari concerned fraudulently attested mutation of the said land vide mutation ... plaintiff-petitioners that they came to know about mutation entry only in the year 1996. There was no contrary plea set up by the respondent
holder of the land by registered sale
deed. On 17.05.1994, the mutation entry came to be recorded in the
revenue record and the same ... admitted position that after a period of 12 years from the
entry mutated in the revenue record based on the alleged transaction,
the action
said registered sale deed, the revenue
entry was mutated vide Mutation Entry No.976 dated 10.3.1989 and the
said entry was certified on 7.6.1989. Thereafter ... admitted position that after a period of 12 years from the
entry mutated in the revenue record based on the alleged
transaction, the action
wherein he was given a
share. Acting on the said document mutation entries
were changed. Because, the 1st defendant did not
agree, the partition could ... basis of the said
document-Ex.P31 mutation entry was made. Mutation
entry is not a document of title. Ex.P.19 do not confer
noted and even so
pleaded /averred in the plaint that mutation entry in favour
of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of registered ... Patel-defendant No. 4 and his name is mutated
in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 1283 dated 10/06/1981.
As held
sale deed executed in favour the defendants 3
and 4, mutation entry had been made on 20.9.1993.
The plaintiff produces
said entry was
examined and certified on 3.12.1952. Thereafter, as Patel Aher
Punja Jadav expired on 15.6.1984, another Entry No.365 was mutated ... admitted position that after a period of 12 years
from the entry mutated in the revenue record based on the alleged
transaction, the action
