Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Pradeep Kumar Singh and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 2078 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Will - Property Dispute - U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, Section 34 - Indian Succession Act, Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, Section 68
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a mutation order passed in favor of respondent no.6 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, based on a Will executed by the deceased property owner in favor of respondent no.6.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation entries do not decide the right, title, or interest of the parties and are maintained only for fiscal purposes. The court also noted that the validity of the Will was subject to scrutiny in a pending civil suit, and any finding recorded by the mutation court was not binding on the civil court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Will, coercion and fraud in executing the Will, and the jurisdiction of the mutation court to decide title disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutation entries do not determine rights and are subject to the findings of the civil court. It cited the decision of the Apex Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 802 to support its view.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the parties were already contesting their rights before the appropriate civil court, and the mutation entries would follow the order passed by the regular courts.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the key points with the appropriate references formatted as specified.
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. Heard Shri Lakshmana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the caveator respondent no.6.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division whereby in proceedings arising out of Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, the order dated 04.02.2019 has been affirmed by which the mutation order has been passed in favour of respondent no.6.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property in question was recorded in the name of Bhanu Pratap Singh.
4. Bhanu Pratap Singh had initially executed a registered Will in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Jabar Bahadur Singh, the mother of the petitioners. Subsequently, the said Will was revoked and another registered Will was executed by Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of the present petitioners. Subsequently, by means of another Will dated 30.11.2012 the earlier two Wills were revoked and a fresh Will came to be executed in favour of the private respondent no.6, who is the son-in-law of Bhanu Pratap Singh.
5. After the death of Bhanu Pratap Singh on 03.11.2013, two rivals sets of mutation applications came to be preferred before the respondent no.5. By means of order dated 04.02.2019 respondent no.5 accepted the Will and passed the mutation order in favour of the respondent no.6.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order dated 04.02.2019 preferred a revision before the respondent no.2 which has also been dismissed by means of order dated 17.01.2022 affirming the order dated 04.02.2019. It is thus being aggrieved that the petitioners had approached this Court by means of the instant petition.
7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Bhanu Pratap Singh through out had implicit faith and trust in the family of the petitioners which led him to execute the registered Will dated 21.03.2002, first in favour of the mother of the petitioners. Subsequently, by revoking the said Will, a fresh Will was executed in favour of the present petitioners on 23.12.2004.
8. It is further urged that prior to the date of death of Bhanu Pratap Singh, the private respondent no.6 by exercising coercion got another Will executed on 30.11.2012 and as such the same cannot be taken to be the basis for mutating the name of the private respondent no.6 as it is an outcome of undue influence and fraud.
9. It is further urged that there is already a title dispute pending between the predecessor of the petitioners and the private respondent no.6 before the Consolidation Courts and unless and until the title is cleared the mutation court was not justified in accepting the Will and passing the impugned order.
10. It is also urged that the findings recorded by the mutation court which has been affirmed by the revisional court are not on the basis of the material on record. Accordingly, the matter requires interference.
11. Shri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.6 has submitted that by means of Will dated 30.11.2012 the earlier Will in favour of the petitioners dated 23.12.2004 was revoked. Bhanu Pratap Singh apart from executing the fresh Will in favour of the private respondent no.6 who is none other than his real son-in-law (Damaad) also revoked and cancelled a power of attorney which was executed in favour of Jabar Bahadur Singh and executed the Will in favour of respondent no.6
12. Learned counsel has further emphasized that the Will of the private respondent no.6 was dulyattested and proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the findings which have been recorded are not liable to be interfered with. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to a fact that the petitioners have already approached the civil court by filing a suit seeking cancella
Mutation entries do not determine rights and are subject to the findings of the civil court.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and findings do not bind parties in subsequent civil suits regarding the same matter.
The court affirmed that a party cannot challenge a mutation order after losing title proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure of prior litigation.
Mutation entries confer no title; true rights must be established in civil court, even when a will is claimed.
The court affirmed that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine substantive rights, allowing for alternative remedies under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Mutation proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
The validity of a 'Will' must be established in a regular court, as mutation proceedings do not adjudicate rights or title over property.
Mutation entries do not impact the title of the parties, and orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
