Mutation proceedings cannot be conducted based on disputed wills without prior testing in a competent Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranjal Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Present case is arising out of a mutation proceedings on basis of rival wills.

3. On basis of record, one Harlal has executed four wills before he died, details thereof are mentioned below:

(a) first registered will dated 03.04.1987 was executed in favour of his daughter Savitri Devi.

(b) second registered will dated 09.09.1991 whereby first will dated 03.04.1987 was cancelled and it was executed in favour of Gagan Chand, legal heirs of his son.

(c) third unregistered will dated 12.12.1992 was executed in favour of his daughter Savitri Devi without referring earlier will dated 09.09.1991, though referred will dated 03.04.1987.

(d) fourth unregistered will dated 14.07.1993 was executed in favour of daughter in law of his son.

4. Tehsildar (J), Jansar, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 31.05.2013 decided the suit for mutation on basis of second registered will dated 09.09.1991 whereby earlier will dated 03.04.1987 was revoked.

5. Being aggrieved by said order, contesting respondents no. 5 and 6 have filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2018. This led to filing of a revision at the behest of private respondents which was allowed by order dated 18.05.2022 and orders dated 31.05.2013 and 29.01.2018 were set aside and unregistered will dated 12.12.1992 was considered to be the valid will.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, present petitioners have filed a revision petition before Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2024.

7. Issue before this Court is two folds, firstly whether mutation proceedings could be carried out on the basis of rival submissions on disputed wills, without being tested in a Civil Court and secondly, whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, revisional Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or not, while interfering with two concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate Court.

8. Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September 2021 has held that mutation could not be made on the basis of will before it is tested by a competent Civil Court. Relevant part thereof is mentioned below:

“6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) by LRs. (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. 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. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (