IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will; such matters must be adjudicated by civil courts.

ORDER :

Challenge is made to the orders dated 12-1-2022 and 10-3-2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior in case No. 1020/2020-21/Appeal and Case No. 45/2021-22/Review, order dated 18-2-2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ashoknagar in Case No. 05/Appeal/2020-21 and order dated 16-6-2020 passed by Tahsildar, Ashoknagar in Case No. 0080/A-6/2020-21.

2. It appears that an application under sections 109, 110 of MPLRC was filed by the respondent-Paramjeet before the Tehsildar, Ashoknagar seeking mutation of her name in the revenue record on the basis of Will of Trilok Singh. The Tehsildar adjudicated the Will and found it to be genuine and passed an order dated 16-6-2020 (Annexure P-1) directing the authorities to record the name of applicant. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SDO, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18-2-2021 (Annexure P-2) on merits. Aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2021 passed by the SDO, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 12-1-2022 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, petitioners preferred a review petition before the Additional Commissioner, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 10-3-2022 (Annexure P-4). Annexures P-1 to P-4 are under challenge in the present petition.

3. Plaintiff/Respondent filed a civil suit No. RCSA/105/20 before the Court below seeking injunction that the Defendants/petitioners be restrained from interfering in the possession. Surprisingly, in the entire plaint, the respondent has not disclosed about the Will of Trilok Singh in her favour. The civil suit was contested by the petitioners herein and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff and defendants both. Both were allowed by the Trial Court restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession and restraining the plaintiff/respondent to alienate the property.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, property was recorded in the name of one Trilok Singh, who died leaving behind him three daughters. It is alleged that during lifetime of Trilok Singh, he executed a registered Will in favour of respondent. It is not the Revenue Court but it is for the Civil Court that has right to decide whether a Will was executed or not, whether it is right or wrong.

6. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of Will or not?

7. The question is no more res integra.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of M. P., by order dated 6-9-2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 13146/2021 has held as under :

“6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh (D) by LRs., reported in (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 vs. 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 vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin vs. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh vs. State of J. and K., (2008) 9 SCC 368;