IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL ON THE 3^rd OF AUGUST, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 4315 of 2019 Between:-

RAMSWAROOP S/O LATE SHRI PYARELAL, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, MANDI SANTAR NO.4, SABALGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI ABHISEHK SINGH BHADAURIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)

AND

1. GANGADHAR S/O LATE SHRI PYARELAL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, MANDI SANTAR NO.4, SABALGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NIRANJAN S/O LATE SHRI PYARELAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MANDI SANTAR NO. 4 SABALGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI R.P. GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena in case No. 141/2015-16/Appeal and order dated 05.01.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh District Morena in case No. 33/2007-2008/Appeal, petitioner has preferred this petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondents are real brother and son of late Pyarelal. Respondents had filed an application on the basis that their father Pyarelal had executed a will in their favour in respect of land which was in his ownership and possession situated at Gran Tonga Tehsil Sabalgarh Survey No. 037 Rakwa 0.290, Survey No.38 Rakwa 0.300, Survey No. 48 Rakwa 0.130 total Rakwa 0.720 and the plot situated at Sunehra Road Sabalgarh Survey No. 786 Min. 1500 Sq. ft. On the basis of the application annexed with the will, Tahsildar Morena by its order dated 28.12.2006 mutated the name of respondents in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh which was dismissed. Thereafter he preferred an appeal before Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena which was also dismissed by order dated 27.12.2018. Against the said order petitioner also preferred a revision before Board of Revenue, Gwalior which was also dismissed as not maintainable.

Aggrieved by this, petitioner has preferred this petition.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of will mutation cannot be done. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Murari and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & ors .2020 (4) MPLJ 139 wherein it is held that the controversy involved in the present matter relates title based on will, which is purely subject matter of Civil Court and can only be decided by attesting witnesses. It is also held that In Rajinder Singh and another Vs. Financial Commissioner (decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.3821/2011) that validity of Will can be decided by the Civil Court, which is the exclusive domain of Civil Court and this cannot be decided by the Revenue Courts.

Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Dharamveer Singh & ors. Vs. Rustom Singh & ors. 2021 1 R.N. 25 wherein it is held that Revenue Courts have no jurisidciton to decide the rights of any party on the basis of 'Will' and if somebody wants to claim his/her title over any property, then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tahsildar did not commit any mistake in directing for mutation of names of respondents on the basis of 'Will' executed by Pyarelal. If the petitioner has any grievance in regard to validity of 'Will', he can approach the Civil Court which has exclusive domain over such matters.

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the decisions rendered by the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court, this petition is allowed. Order dated 28.12.2006 passed by Tahsildar Sabalgarh District Morena (Annexure P/4), Order dated 05.01.2016 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer Sabalgarh District Morena (Ann