Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership; only a competent civil court can determine title to property.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated 30.11.1987 and 22.09.1990, respectively.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff-appellants i.e. Devi Sahai filed the present suit. During the pendency of the suit, on the death of Devi Sahai, his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs. The dispute relates to a site identified by letters 'ABCD' in the plan (Ex.P1) attached with the plaint. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants was that the site was part of plot No.212 which was owned by the plaintiff-appellants and that the defendant-respondent, whose house adjoined the site in dispute towards North, had illegally opened a door at site 'D' in the southern wall of his house and through the door the defendant-respondent had gained access to the site in dispute and constructed a chabutra and hence the suit for prohibitory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to close the door and also to remove the chabutra and an injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellants on the site in dispute. Written statement was filed by the defendant-respondent. It was averred in the written statement that in front of house of the plaintiff-appellants there was an open chowk which was part of shamlat deh and that the site in dispute was a subject matter of Civil Suit No.75 dated 10.04.1952 titled as Ganpat v. Bishamber decided on 28.01.1953 wherein it was held that the site in dispute was a part of the chowk, a common land vesting in the Panchayat.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land shown by letters ABCD in the site plan as alleged, if so its effect ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct ? OPD

3. Relief.

4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on the record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1987. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants before the First Appellate Court which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.1990. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that Plot No.212 measuring 14 marlas was recorded to be in the ownership of the plaintiff-appellants and Ex.P6 was a copy of the mutation sanctioned by the Consolidation Authority whereby Plot No.212 was allotted to the plaintiff-appellants. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that once the mutation had been sanctioned in the name of the father of the present plaintiff-appellants vide Ex.P6, he was a recorded owner and that since the mutation was never challenged he continues to be owner of the said property.

6. Per contra the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent would contend that vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.1953 (Ex.D2) and the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1953 (Ex.D3), the father of the plaintiff-appellants had admitted that the property was shamlat deh and that once the property was shamlat deh, the same could not have been allotted at the time of consolidation. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Gram Panchayat of Village Hoshiarpur v. State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP No.4493 of 2007 decided on 31.10.2012]. It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendant-respondent that a mutation would not confer any title on the person. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v.