favour of the
plaintiffs, defendant no.1 to 4 declaring the Mutation order ... suit is for decree of declaration :
"Firstly that the mutation order dated 18.11.1996 is null
and void; and
Secondly that the defendant
CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED DT.
18061987 AND ALSO THE MUTATION ORDER DT. 14022000
AND & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Suit ... cancellation of sale deed dt. 18061987 and also the mutation
order dt. 14022000 as null and void and for permanent injunction
CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED DT.
18061987 AND ALSO THE MUTATION ORDER DT. 14022000
AND & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Suit ... cancellation of sale deed dt. 18061987 and also the mutation
order dt. 14022000 as null and void and for permanent injunction
objection till date and in these facts and circumstances, the
mutation order Ex. PW1/D1 put to this witness in his cross
examination ... mutated in his
name, then why the plaintiff remained silent for almost 16 years and
has not challenged this agreement and mutation order. The
defendants
mutation of land in Khasra No. 18/3 (1-0). On
27.02.1987 vide mutation No. 167 Tehsildar Mutation vide Case No. 814/86-87
mutated ... Indu Sharma to execute the order of vesting in favour of Gaon Sabha.
91. Vide orders dated 11.02.2000 mutation recorded in favour of
Smt. Indu
which mutation of 10 biswa of land of Kh. No. 21/9 was
effected in favour of IP No. 1 on 30.10.90. Mutation order ... order dated 12.11.1992 passed by
Ld. SDM/RA in case No. 237/8687. As per this order, after Tehsildar
had sanctioned mutation in favour
during the consolidation proceedings at the time of
passing of the mutation order. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 state that
they have been residing ... share. In the
absence of any order setting aside the mutation order dated 3.6.1965,
the plaintiffs herein cannot challenge any subsequent creation of
interest
floor
of the property was mutated in the record of MCD in the name of
Kasturi Lal vide mutation order dated ... received a mutation letter Ex. PW1/8 from MCD. He
further stated that he has not challenged the mutation order passed
that the plaintiffs and
defendant no.2 and 3 had accepted mutation order of Naib Tehsildar.
19. Defendant no. 1 also stated that ... Order XIV Rule 2 of
CPC have to be read harmoniously with Order XX Rule 5 of CPC
which while reiterating the provisions of Order
further states that he does not have the mutation order in the name
of his father nor he is aware regarding the said mutation ... Shri Nathu Singh, the then SDM of
Shahdara Zone, had ordered for opening of the seal of the land in dispute in favour
