IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 1253 of 1994 dismissing the second appeal in limine, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge in Case No. 66 of 1986.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the disputed land. It was alleged in the plaint that one Gurbax Singh was the admitted owner of the land in question and he died leaving behind his widow Gurdip Kaur and daughters Swarni, the plaintiff, and Roori @ Kirpal Kaur. Said Gurbax Singh purchased the land in question form one Dhara Singh under a registered sale deed dated 5th September, 1958. Widow Gurdip Kaur died on 14th April, 1968 and on her death plaintiff and Roori succeeded to the disputed land in question. Gurdip Kaur also had executed a Will on 29th February, 1968 in favour of her two daughters the plaintiff and Roori. Plaintiff and Roori had obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the legal heirs of Gurdip Kaur from the Civil Court on 4th April, 1975. Said Roori was not heard of and did not claim any interest in the disputed property, but defendant Nos. 8 and 9 are the sons of said Roori and defendant No. 7 is her husband and, therefore, in the property of Gurbax Singh, plaintiff as well defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are the successors in interest and are entitled to share half and half. It was also alleged that defendant Nos. 5 and 6 without having any interest in the property forcibly occupied a portion of the disputed property taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff from the suit village and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief as already stated. It was also averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No. 5 - Inder Kaur and said defendant No. 5 claiming herself to be one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh had executed the sale deed in question. Plaintiff contended that defendant No. 5 is the daughter of Harnam Singh brother of Gurbax Singh and not daughter of Gurbax Singh as alleged and, therefore, she had no title to the property to pass on in favour of defendant No. 1 under the registered sale deed in question.

4. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in their written statement though admitted plaintiff to be one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh, but pleaded that the other daughter of Gurbax Singh is Inder Kaur, the defendant No. 5 and Roori @ Kirpal Kaur was not the daughter of Gurbax Singh. The execution of Will by Gurdip Kaur, widow of Gurbax Singh was also denied and it was averred that the said Will is a forged and fictitious document. The defendants also denied the factum of obtaining a succession certificate by the plaintiff and said Roori. It was thus contended that since Inder Kaur had half share in the disputed property being daughter of Gurbax Singh, she executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 6 on receipt of valuable consideration. Thus, the possession of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 or defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is that of a true owner and they cannot be held to be trespassers. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a separate written statement and took the same stand as that of defendant Nos. 5 and 6. It was also averred in the written statement that the land in question had been mutated in favour of plaintiff and Inder Kaur which establishes the rightful ownership of defendant No. 5. Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff s claim. On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed as many as 8 issues and recorded the following findings :

(i) Gurbax Singh was the owner of the disputed property.

(ii) Roori @ Kirpal Kaur was the other daughter of Gurbax Singh apart from plaintiff and Inder Kaur, defendant No. 5 was not his daughter.