Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to decide the issue of the genuineness of will during mutation proceeding?

                   If an application under Section 110 of MPLR

       Code is filed for mutation of the name of all the legal

       heirs, then it would certainly be a proceeding under the

       MPLR Code because the question of title is not

       involved and all the legal heirs of the deceased/owner

       will be brought on record without any further

       adjudication but whether the adjudication of the title of

       the parties on the basis of a ''Will'' can be said to be a

       proceeding under the Act or not, is a moot question

       which requires consideration.

      

      (26) It is well-established principle of law that the

      burden is on the propounder of the ''Will'' to prove that

      the ''Will'' was executed in his favour by the testator.

      Even if the ''Will'' is not challenged by anybody, but

      still the propounder of the ''Will'' has to discharge his

      burden and no decree can be passed even by the Civil

      Court merely on the ground that the respondents have

      chosen not to appear before it or have failed to file their

      written statement as provided under Order 8 Rule 10

      CPC.”

9.    Further, the similar view which was taken by this Court on the

earlier occasion has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this

Court in the Writ Appeal in the case of Murari (supra). Thus, it is

clear that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the

correctness and genuineness of a “Will” and if the propounder of the

“Will” wants to take advantage of the “Will”, then he has to get his

title declared from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

       

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    Writ Petition No.6695/2013

               Smt. Ramkali Vs. Banmali and another

Gwalior, Dated :17/02/2021

     

Print Page

Whether the court can infer acceptance of a gift of immovable property from mutation entries?

 The word acceptance is defined as "is the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift." (See Ramanatha P. Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., page 19).

26. The aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself. The only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself.

27. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Asokan v. Lakshmikutty, MANU/SC/0104/2008 : (2007) 13 SCC 210

14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance.

(emphasis supplied)

28. In the present case, the gift deed itself contained certain recitals as mentioned below:

...Out of the aforesaid land in all the khasra's 1/2 part means 50 percent I am giving you in gift being my younger son with my pleasure. My elder son Shri Babu Singh has no objection to this gift ... From today you are the owner of the half of the land gifted to you and you will have possession hereafter. You have the complete right over the aforesaid land for cultivation from today onward. Now you get the gifted land mutated in your name... These lands have not been sold or under Will or under the gift earlier. Further I state that the aforesaid land is free from any debt liability... The registration of the aforesaid gift has been done by me in my sound physical and mental health with consent without any undue coercion and pressure from anyone. I have gifted the aforesaid land with my sweet will and wish...

These recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed.

29. In order to show acceptance, the counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the mutation records. The Mutation entry in the Revenue Record of Gram Sedriya, District Pali dated 28.10.1968 clearly reflects that half portion of Appellant's land was bestowed as a gift by the Appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift dated 19.12.1963.

30. Furthermore, the statement dated 31.08.1984, rendered by the Appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed. He further stated that after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same.

31. The aforesaid statement of the Appellant-donor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee on 15.12.1988 before the Court of Additional District Magistrate. Therein, the donee clearly stated that, as he did not get along with his step-mother, he started living separately and the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same.

32. Therefore, the abovementioned circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself contained recitals about transfer of possession, but also the mutation records and the statements of the both the donor and donee indicate that, there has been an acceptance of the gift by conduct.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2010

Decided On: 08.12.2020

Daulat Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0926/2020

Print Page

Whether daughters can claim right in property of their father as per his will if they have given no objection for mutation of property in the name of their brothers?

Merely because the daughters of the deceased had execute

d a no-objection certificate for mutation of the property in favour of their brothers would not defeat the right of the daughters to a share in the property when the will of the deceased categorically vested them with rights in the said property. The Court further observed that any averment in the no-objection certificate as regards the purport of the will, if found contrary to the contents of the will, could not be read against the daughters.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 263/2018 and IA No. 7445/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)

Decided On: 19.02.2020

 Chitta Ranjan Das Vs. Jyotsna Das

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Print Page

Whether a person can not claim the title in the property even if the revenue record shows his name in respect of said immovable property?

 The contention raised by the Appellants is that since Mangal

Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per

the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self acquired  property.

The said contention is legally misconceived since entries

in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor

do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only

enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to

pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.

As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s

name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a

recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him

the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5919 OF 2011

Prahlad Pradhan Vs  Sonu Kumhar

Dated: October 16, 2019

Author: INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Print Page

Whether one co-owner will become exclusive owner of property by adverse possession if his name is mutated in revenue record?

 Similarly, in the matter of Jatina Khatoon and others v. S.K. Najeeb (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others MANU/SC/1076/2017 : (2018) 11 SCC 717, it has been held by the Supreme Court that mere non-participation in rent and profit of land of a co-sharer does not amount to ouster so as to be given title by adverse possession, relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed MANU/SC/0363/1980 : (1980) 4 SCC 396 : (AIR 1981 SC 77).

29. Similarly, in the matter of Darshan Singh and others v. Gujjar Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. and others MANU/SC/0007/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 62 : (AIR 2002 SC 606), the Supreme Court has held that mere mutation in revenue records in favour of one co-sharer does not amount to ouster unless there is a clear declaration denying title of the other co-sharers and in the normal course possession by one co-sharer of property belonging to several co-sharers will be deemed to be possession on behalf of the others. It was further held in paragraph 9 of the report as under:--

"9. In our view, the correct legal position is that possession of a property belonging to several co-sharers by one co-sharer shall be deemed that he possesses the property on behalf of the other co-sharers unless there has been a clear ouster by denying the title of other co-sharers and mutation in the revenue records in the name of one co-sharer would not amount to ouster unless there is a clear declaration that title of the other co-sharers was denied."

30. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down qua the plea of adverse possession by ouster in the abovestated judgments rendered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the defendants have taken the plea of adverse possession half-heartedly by simply stating that the plaintiffs did not assert any title over the suit land right from the year 1954 till the date of institution of suit and neither claimed any title nor made any dispute with regard to the suit land and allowed the defendants to get their names mutated in the revenue records and further allowed division of holdings in the relevant revenue records as per convenience of the defendants and the defendants are in possession right from 1954 and therefore they have become title holders by remaining in possession for long time which has been accepted by the two Courts below. The defendants have taken the following plea of adverse possession and ouster of the plaintiff, in the written statement as under:--

{Vernacular omitted}

31. In the considered opinion of this Court, as held earlier, mere mutation in the revenue records and not asserting title over the suit land would not amount to ouster so as to give title by adverse possession to the defendants particularly when there is no pleading of ouster raised, except that the suit lands have been mutated in their names and there is division of holdings in the name of the defendants and they are in possession of the suit land for long time since 1954. It is already held that possession of joint property by one co-owner is in the eyes of law, possession of all even if one is actually out of possession and passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Second Appeal No. 450 of 2003

Decided On: 24.01.2019

Lunja  Vs.  Bugad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Chhat 83

Print Page

Whether revenue authorities can decide question of title during mutation proceeding?

In my view, the validity of the development agreement and the two power of attorneys as well as the conveyance deed which were all registered cannot be gone into by the revenue authority in the proceedings under section 149 read with section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The revenue authority has no power to adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property in respect of which an application for reporting the rights under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is made by the applicant.

33. This Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors., delivered on 24th April 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10914 of 2017 has held that the revenue authority cannot adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property for which an application for recording the names in the revenue record is made by one of the parties eligible to apply under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this Court. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the judgment delivered by this Court would also squarely apply to the facts of this Court. In my view, the impugned orders passed by the learned Revenue Minister dated 8th March 2018 and the learned Additional Commissioner dated 3rd June 2017 thus deserve to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2018

Decided On: 15.06.2018

 Ramesh Shantilal Modi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 173

Print Page

Whether mutation entries in absence of registered relinquishment deed can be relied on?

Since this Court has already come to the conclusion, on the basis of aforesaid provision of law as well as material available on record, that no immovable property could be relinquished without there being registered document, mutation, if any, conducted on the basis of oral relinquishment/'Azadinama' as reflected in Ex. P-1 and Ex. DX has no bearing on the rights of plaintiff, who is absolute owner of the suit land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Regular Second Appeal No. 23 of 2006

Decided On: 05.05.2017

 Piar Chand and Ors. Vs. Sant Ram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Citation:AIR 2017(NOC) 918 HP

Print Page

Whether father has relinquished his share in name of his son if he has agreed for mutation of property in name of son?

We considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute in the factual matrix. Guramma was the first wife of 1st defendant and the plaintiff was their only son and suit property was purchased by Guramma by Exh. P-1 sale deed dated 14.11.1959 and the property stood in her name in revenue record. The plaintiff was born on 1.10.1965 and Guramma died on 20.1.1966. As perSection 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the husband and the son of deceased Guramma, namely 1st defendant and the plaintiff, being class-I heirs succeeded to the suit property. As per Exh. P-8, Katha of suit property was changed to the name of plaintiff from his mother on 9.1.1990 and the endorsement therein made by the Tahsildar reveals that the 1st defendant accepted the mutation of entry in the name of the plaintiff, being their only son and on the basis of the said declaration, the mutation was effected and it was not challenged. Exh. D-10 is the RTC extract covering the period from 1989 to 1992 and the plaintiff was shown as the owner of the suit property.

9. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel apearing for the appellants, 1st defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. 

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors vs L. Venkatesh Reddy on 17 April, 2015

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan

Citation:2015 SAR (Civil)611

Print Page

Whether mutation entries can be taken without permission of collector?

The request of the petitioner is to register the
mutation and, therefore, he applied to the Deputy Superintendent
of the Land Records, Gondia. The said authority has directed the
petitioner to approach the Collector, Gondia and produce the No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from the said Collector.
The request of the petitioner is simplicitor to mutate
his name in the land records. At this stage, it is difficult to
understand as to how the authorities under the Land Revenue Code
are concerned with the rights of the parties like the petitioner. The
matter of title to the properties stands apart and can be dealt with
and decided by the Competent Courts. In these circumstances, it is
difficult to sustain the directions of the Dy. Superintendent of Land

Records, Gondia. Let this Deputy Superintendent of Land Records,
Gondia consider the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation
in the revenue records in accordance with rules and without
insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2012
Indrakumar Harivallabh Mundra
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
 & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
 DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2012.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to obtain no objection from collector for mutation of transfer of land?

Prayer of petitioner is to set aside the
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011,   sent   by
Taluka Inspector Land Records (TILR), Murtijapur,
Akola, rejecting his request for mutation on the
ground that it is not accompanied by No Objection
Certificate (NOC) of the Collector, Akola.  
3. Shri.   G.   K.   Mundhada,   the   learned
Counsel for the petitioner, relies upon provisions of
Section   149   of   the   Maharashtra   Land   Revenue

Code,   1966,   to   urge   that   the   petitioner   had
purchased a residential Nazul plot bearing No. 1, 2
and   3­6,   Sheet   No.   26(B),   admeasuring   119.7
sq.mtrs. with construction of 74.34 sq.mtrs., vide
registered   Sale   Deed   dated   8th  April,   2004   for
valuable consideration. The document is registered
at   serial   No.   875/2004   and   in   view   of   said
production,   it   was   obligatory   upon   Revenue
authorities   to   take   note   thereof   and   correct
revenue records.   He further relies upon order of
this   Court   dated   12th  June,   2012   to   urge   that
calling   upon   petitioner   to   produce   NOC   from
Collector is already found irrelevant and arbitrary
by this Court.  
 The   petitioner   admittedly     has
purchased the  land by registered document and
hence   his   rights   need   to   be   taken   note   of   in
Revenue Records.   Mere entry in the land record
does   not   confer   any   title   and   cannot   prejudice
contentions   of   any   private   party   in   the   matter.
Demand of NOC by impugned order, therefore, is
unjustified in present facts.  This Court has, while
deciding writ petition No. 1023 of 2012 on 12th
June, 2012, has already found refusal to consider
such application for mutation unjustified.  In view
of   this   position,   we   set   aside   the   impugned
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011.     The
respondent No. 3 shall look into the request made
by petitioner in accordance with law and without
insisting for such NOC within  a period of eight
weeks from today.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 375 of 2013
Abdul Vahabkhan Abdul Sattarkhan
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 
CORAM :  B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED  :  JUNE 27, 2013.

Print Page