1. - Onkar and Hira - the two brothers - were the Khatedars of 36 Bighas 14 Biswas of land situated in village Uthel Tehsil Badi Sadri district Chittorgarh. After their death, petitioner Rama - the sole survival of Onkar - became the Khatedar of 18 Bighas 7 Biswas of land while Mst. Rami Widow of 1-lira became the Khatedar of 18 Bighas 7 Biswas of the land which was in the Khatedari of her deceased husband I lira. Mst. Rami, by an unregistered sale-deed dated 24.2.64, sold this 18 Bighas 7 Bishas of land to petitioner Rama for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- and as per the case of the petitioner, the possession was handed over to him. The petitioner applied for mutation to be made in his name with respect to this land which he purchased from Mst. Rami and the Gram Panchayat, vide its order dated 13.7.76, ordered for mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner. Hem Raj, Mst. Lachhi, Mst. Rami and Mst. Deu preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, challenging the order dated 13.7.76, passed by the Gram Panchayat, ordering for the entry of the mutation made in the name of the petitioner. The appeal, filed by Hem Raj and others, was dismissed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Nirnbaheda, by its order dated 6.1.78. Hem Raj and others, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, and the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 4.1.80, allowed the appeal filed by Hem Raj and others and set aside the order dated 13.7.76 passed by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the order dated 4.1.80, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 9.9.86. It is against this judgment, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of mutation, it is only the possession which has to be-look-into and the unregistered sale-deed can be read in the evidence for colateral purposes to show the possession and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the mutation cannot be entered on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue and has submitted that no mutation can be entered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed.

3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Sections 133 to 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act deal with the entries to be made in the Revenue Records on the basis of the possession by succession, transfer or otherwise, of any property or other right or interest in any land or the profit thereof. Section 133 f the Act provides that the party interested in the land, who obtains possession, shall bring to the knowledge of the village Patwari and report it to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the land is situated, either directly or through the village Patwari or Land Record Officer, within three months from the date on which he obtained such possession. Section 134 of the Act provides a fine for neglect in reporting the matter as required under Section 133 of the, Act. Section 135 of the Act provides the procedure to be followed for recording of the entries in the Annual Register. This entry in the revenue record is called 'mutation'. 'Mutation' simply means the alteration of the entry with the object of making it a representative fact with record to the present right and liabilities of the persons. It is not a final settlement of the rights and the final adjudication can be made only in the regular suits. The