IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Ranjit – Appellant
Versus
Nandita Singh and Ors. – Respondents
M.P. 2692 of 2020
Decided On : 16-02-2021
Will - Mutation of Name - Section 110 of MPLR Code - [Section 110 of MPLR Code] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for mutation of name. It held that the revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title by adjudicating the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will'. The court set aside the orders passed by the authorities and directed the deletion of the respondent's name from the revenue record, mutating the name of the legal heirs of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application for mutation of her name based on an unregistered 'Will' purportedly executed by the deceased. The revenue authorities mutated the name of the respondent based on the 'Will'. The petitioner appealed against the mutation orders, arguing that the revenue authorities did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of the 'Will'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue authorities did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of the 'Will' for mutation of name. It set aside the orders passed by the authorities and directed the deletion of the respondent's name from the revenue record, mutating the name of the legal heirs of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.
Issues: Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for mutation of name.
Ratio Decidendi: The revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title by adjudicating the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for mutation of name.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders passed by the authorities and directed the deletion of the respondent's name from the revenue record, mutating the name of the legal heirs of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.
JUDGMENT :
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Since the contesting party is the respondent No. 1, therefore, the case is heard finally.
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10/10/2002 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior in Case No. 89/01-02/A-6, order dated 07/12/2018 passed by SDO, Lashkar, District Gwalior in Case No. 68/2016-17/Appeal and order dated 10/06/2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No. 109/18-19/Appeal.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent no. 1 filed an application under Section 110 of MPLR Code before the Tahsildar for mutation of her name on the basis of Will purportedly executed by Vijay Singh Rao Mohite, son of Late Shankar Rao Mohite, who was also known as ''Vijay Singh Rao Ghorpade'' in respect of Survey Nos. 18, 19, 22, 23, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 and 189, total area 49 bigha 6 biswa situated in Village Ghatampur, Tahsil and District Gwalior.
3. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that she was brought up by the testator when she was 10 years old and her marriage was also performed by the testator and out of love and affection, the testator had executed an unregistered ''Will'' on 04/04/2002. Although the order sheets of the Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior have not been placed on record, but it appears from the order dated 10/10/2002 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior (Annexure P3) that a public notice was issued but no objection was received from anybody. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 examined Aditya Patankar and Govinddas Bansal who are the attesting witnesses of the unregistered ''Will'' (Annexure P5). The statements of Patwari were also recorded by the Tahsildar, who stated that the above-mentioned survey numbers are recorded in the name of Vijay Singh Rao Mohite, in the Khasra Panchshala and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior by order dated 10/10/2002 directed for mutation of the name of respondent no. 1 on the basis of unregistered ''Will'' purportedly executed by Vijay Singh Rao Mohite.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of mutation, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay which was registered as Case No. 68/2016-17/Appeal. By the order dated 07/12/2018 passed by SDO, Lashkar, District Gwalior, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as barred by time as well as was also dismissed on merits.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO, Lashkar, District Gwalior, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which was registered as Case No. 109/2018-19/Appeal, which too has been dismissed after relying upon the unregistered ''Will'' relied upon by the respondent No. 1.
6. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of ''Will'' and thus, the mutation of the name of the respondent No. 1 on the basis of ''Will'' was without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that even otherwise, it is well-established principle of law that the propounder of ''Will'' has to remove all suspicious circumstances which are attached to a ''Will'' and if the evidence led by the respondent No. 1 is considered, then it is clear that none of the witnesses had stated that who had got the ''Will'' typed and whether the ''Will'' was got typed on the instructions of the testator and whether the ''Will'' was read over to the testator before signing the same or the testator had himself read that ''Will''. Even the scribe of the unregi
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for mutation of name.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for the mutation of names in the revenue record....
The Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of a Will, and only the Civil Court can determine the genuineness of a Will.
The mandatory reporting of acquisition of legal right and interest within 6 months, the jurisdiction of revenue courts in mutation proceedings, and the principle of estoppel were central legal points....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.