Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title. The correctness of the sale deed and possession over the land are relevant considerations for the mutation court to decide.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.: -

Heard Sri D.K. Triapthi for the petitioners.

2. The writ petition has been field for quashing the proceeding in Case No.191 (Ashok Kumar vs. Sonkalli) under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") pending before the Tehsildar, Mariyahoon, Jaunpur. On the basis of sale deed dated 27.9.2007 executed by Smt. Sonkalli, the respondent-4 filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for mutation of his name over the land sold to him. Prior to filing of the application the petitioner has filed a civil suit, O.S. No.879 of 2007 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute and thereafter O.S. No. 924 of 2007 for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.9.2007.

3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that Smt. Sonkalli is an insane woman and she was neither in necessity of money nor she executed any sale deed and the sale deed in question was executed by some imposter and on the basis of fake sale deed mutation proceeding cannot be taken. The controversy regarding validity of the sale deed has to be examined and decided by the civil court in O.S. No.924 of 2007 as such during the pendency of the O.S. No. 924 of 2007, Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to proceed with the mutation case.

4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.

5. The principle relating to stay of the proceeding of subsequent suit based on same cause of action between the same parties is given under Section 10 C.P.C. as under: -

"10. Stay of suit.--No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."

6. This Court after review of entire case law in Santosh Sharma v. Cantonment Board, Meerut, (2011) 87 ALR 436 , held that for applying section 10, C.P.C., both the proceedings should be in suits between the same parties and it will not apply to proceedings initiated under any other statute. It has, therefore, to be held that section 10, C.P.C. will not apply to proceedings initiated under section 4 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

7. The mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, is fiscal in nature. Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question as held by Supreme Court in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 . In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr., (2007) 6 SCC 186 , mutation order was obtained on the basis of will although civil suit for cancellation of the will was pending. Supreme Court held that it is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. Correctness or genuineness of the will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of Respondent 5 will be decided on its own merits.

8. Full Bench of this Court in Ram Nath vs. Munna, 1976 RD 220 (F.B.) has