Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Prafull Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No.22675 Of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
The case involves a dispute over the mutation of a plot based on conflicting will deeds. The petitioner challenges the mutation order in favor of Usha Singh, arguing that a subsequent unregistered will deed should take precedence. The court considers the evidence, including the registered will deed, and the subsequent oral agreement to modify the will deed. It also notes the pending civil suit for declaration. Relying on the interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court, the court dismisses the writ petition, emphasizing that the mutation order does not preclude the petitioner from establishing their claim in the Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the mutation of a plot based on conflicting will deeds. The petitioner challenges the mutation order in favor of Usha Singh, arguing that a subsequent unregistered will deed should take precedence.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismisses the writ petition, emphasizing that the mutation order does not preclude the petitioner from establishing their claim in the Civil Court.
Issues: Dispute over mutation based on conflicting will deeds, consideration of subsequent oral agreement to modify the will deed, and the pending civil suit for declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: Interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court, emphasizing that the mutation order does not preclude the petitioner from establishing their claim in the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, and the orders passed in the mutation proceeding will not come in the way of the petitioner to establish his claim before the Civil Court in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyanendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.4 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Gajraj Singh was the recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. Gajraj Singh has alleged to execute a registered will deed on 23.12.1992 in favour of Usha Singh. On 9.1.1993., Gajraj Singh has alleged to execute another unregistered will deed on 9.1.1993 in favour of his nephew-Digvijay Singh and others. Tehsildar initially allowed the mutation in favour of Vijay Bahadur and others vide order dated 15.7.1993 but later on the order for mutation dated 15.7.1993 was recalled and fresh order was passed on 12.11.2018 in favour of Usha Singh on the basis of registered will deed executed on 23.12.1992. The order of Tehsildar was maintained in revision by Revisional Court while dismissing the revision filed by petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.11.2022 hence this writ petition for quashing the order dated 12.11.2018 and 21.11.2022 in the proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Gajraj Singh has executed the unregistered will deed in favour of Vijay Bahadur and others which was the last will of the deceased-Gajraj. He further submitted that during pendency of the mutation proceeding, compromise has taken place by which the respondent no.4-Usha Singh has admitted the execution of subsequent will deed dated 9.1.1993 but the Court has arbitrarily ignored the compromise taken place during pendency of the proceeding. He further submitted that Revisional Court has also failed to consider the points set up in the revision and argued before the Revisional Court. He further submitted that although petitioner filed a civil suit No. 221 of 2021 against the Usha Singh before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Chunar, Mirzapur for declaring will deed dated 24.12.1992 as null and void but the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar on the basis of alleged will deed dated 23.12.1992 cannot be sustained. He further submitted that impugned orders be set aside and mutation matter be considered afresh in the light of the compromise taken place between the parties before the Tehsildar. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2021 (0) Supreme Court (SC) 487 Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Gyanendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that Gajraj Singh has executed a registered will deed in favour of Usha Singh which has not been cancelled in accordance with law, as such, the mutation order was rightly passed by Tehsildar in favour of the respondent no.4-Usha Singh. He further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed and no interference is required in the matter. He submitted that petitioner has already filed suit for declaration in respect to the will deed executed in favour of respondent no.4, as such, petitioner should press his pending civil suit and no interference is required against the impugned order passed in the summary proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
6. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the ratio of law laid down by this court in the case reported in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue and Others, reported in (2022) 155 R.D. 169.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that Tehsildar has passed the order of mutation in favour of respondent no.4, Usha Singh on the basis of registered will deed dated 24.12.1992. There is also no dispute ab
The interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court regarding the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements to modify will deeds.
Proper exercise of jurisdiction in mutation proceedings and limitations on revisional authority's powers under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Mutation entries do not impact the title of the parties, and orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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
