IMPORTANT POINTS
Mutation entries do not conclusively establish title.
Amendment to plaint when allowed relates back to date of plaint.

Judgment

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The plaintiffs’ suits (Nos. 124 of 1982 and 125 of 1982) for declaration of title and injunction were dismissed by the learned trial court. In first appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the decree of dismissal and decided the suits in favour of the plaintiffs. The said decree has been affirmed in second appeal by the Bombay High Court. Aggrieved the present appeals have been filed by the defendants in the two suits.

2. Insofar as recital of the relevant facts is concerned it will suffice to notice that the plaintiffs’ suits were initially for injunction against one Essar Construction Company (Suit No.125 of 1982) and one Ardeshir B. Kurshetji & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.124 of 1982) who were raising certain constructions on the suit land of which the plaintiffs claimed to be owners. Initially the present appellants/defendants were not parties to the said suits. However, subsequently they were impleaded as defendants as, according to the plaintiffs, they were informed by the construction companies that they were authorised to raise the constructions on the suit land by the villagers of Mandva Village who claimed to be owners of the land. The appellants/defendants who were so impleaded and proceeded against in a representative capacity filed their written statement in the suits denying the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted their title, specifically by seeking the additional relief of declaration of title which was allowed to be brought on record by permitting an amendment of the suits insofar as the relief(s) claimed is concerned.

3. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs date to the year 1916 when the suit land measuring 14.5 acres was recorded in the name of one Amarsi Gujjar, the grandfather of the present respondent-plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon demise of Amarsi Gujjar in the year 1926, the property devolved by survivorship on Hirachand Gujjar, the father of the plaintiffs and on his demise in the year 1971 the same devolved upon the plaintiffs.

4. The appellant-defendants, on being impleaded in the suits, filed written statements contending, inter alia, that the mutation entry of the year 1916 showed Amarsi Gujjar as the holder of the land on behalf of the villagers. He was described as a Vahiwatadar of the villagers. Similarly, the mutation entry of the year 1927 following the death of Amarsi Gujjar also recorded Hirachand Gujjar as a Vahiwatadar and the land was shown as being held on behalf of the villagers. The above is the core of the claim of the respective parties on the basis of which certain supplemental pleas have also been raised which will be noticed as we proceed to delve further into the matter.

5. The learned trial court, as already noticed, dismissed the suits of the plaintiffs. This was primarily on the basis that the mutation entries of the years 1916 and 1927, which formed the foundation of the claims of the parties, indicated that the land was held by Amarsi Gujjar and thereafter by Hirachand Gujjar on behalf of the villagers. What would be particularly relevant to be noticed, at this stage, out of the huge multitude of facts that confronts the Court is that there was a parallel revenue proceeding wherein the issue was one pertaining to the correctness of the aforesaid two mutation entries. The said proceedings culminated in an order of the State Government dated 06.01.1993 passed in exercise of its revisional powers holding that the mutation entries of 1916 and consequently the entries of the year 1927 were extremely doubtful in view of certain interpolations or overwritings in the said mutation entries. Accordingly, the mutation entries were declared to be without any legal effect. The said order was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition which was heard and decided along with the second appeal in question. The order passed by the High Court in the civil writ petition has also been challenged before us in the present appeals.