Statements in mutation proceedings are not binding as evidence on courts in subsequent judicial proceedings.

1. This second appeal has been taken up for final hearing through video conferencing.

2. This second appeal preferred by legal representatives of original defendant No.1 was admitted for hearing on 29.6.2010 by formulating the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the first appellate Court has committed an error of law by ignoring the material piece of evidence, i.e., the statement of plaintiff Malej before Tahsildar Kasdol vide Ex.D1 and has thereby recorded a perverse finding to the effect that Berson was not the son of Maidan Kanwar?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

3. Two plaintiffs - Malej and Jageshwar being sons of Konda fled a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction stating inter - alia that their father were two brothers namely Konda and Murit, they were sons of Maidan Kunwar. Murit died issueless. Mother of Berson was kept as keep by their grandfather Maidan Kunwar, but Berson was not son of Maidan Kunwar out of marriage and original defendant No.1 - Ghasnin Bai was daughter of Berson and as such, Berson had no relation at all with the plaintiffs'' family, but she has got her name mutated in revenue records, which is totally unauthorized, therefore, original defendant No.1 has no right and title over the suit land and she has no right of partition and as such, the plaintiffs possession be confirmed over the suit land and decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction be granted in their favour.

4. Original defendant No.1 - Ghasninbai (died and her legal representatives were brought on record) filed her written statement and pleaded that her grandmother was the wife of Maidan Kunwar as Maidan Kunwar has kept her mother as wife and out of their wedlock, Berson has taken birth. It was also pleaded that plaintiff No.1 - Malej has made statement in mutation proceedings vide Ex.D - 1 that Ghasninbai was daughter of Berson and Berson was brother of Konda, therefore, his father and name of Ghasninbai were also mutated in revenue records and therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed as her name has validly been entered into revenue records and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any decree.

5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree 4.4.2005, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree 21.4.2008 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs granting decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining legal representatives of defendant No.1 from interfering with their peaceful possession. Feeling aggrieved against that judgment and decree, this second appeal under S.100 of the CPC has been filed by legal representatives of defendant No.1, in which substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court, which has been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment for sake of completeness.

6. Mr.H.V.Sharma, learned counsel for legal representatives of defendant No.1 / appellants, would submit that plaintiff - Malej has already made statement before the Tahsildar, Kasdol vide Ex.D - 1 that Ghasninbai is daughter of Berson and Berson was brother of his father Konda and prayer was made for addition of name of Ghasninbai also along with them, as such, statement made by plaintiff No.1 is an admi