IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 1342 of 2025 NUPUR CHAKRAVORTY Versus PARTH SARTHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Batra - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Manoj Jha - Advocate for the Respondent/State.

ORDER By way of the present Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

19.11.2025 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application of the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

2. The Respondent No.1 has filed a suit on the assertion that Plaintiff is son of the deceased Amiya Kumar Mukherjee, who was having certain properties in Betul and the Plaintiff was in service at some other place and in the intervening time, the present defendant No.1 has managed to get mutation of various properties and got various deposits released in her name which were owned by his deceased father who expired in the year 2022. 3. The aforesaid mutations were carried out by the present Petitioner/defendant No.1 projecting herself to be the daughter of sister of Plaintiff and therefore, she is the daughter of predeceased daughter of late Amiya Kumar Mukherjee whereas the assertion of the Plaintiff is that his sister had died issueless and hence, his sister had no daughter. Therefore, a disputed question touching the title of the property has arisen between the parties i.e, whether defendant No.1 has right to succeed the property upon death of Amiya Kumar Mukherjee, or not.

4. In the Plaint, the first relief is declaration that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of deceased Nivedita, who was predeceased daughter of Amiya Kumar Mukherjee and to declare that she has no right title or interest in the properties of Amiya Kumar Mukherjee. Second relief in this suit is that it be declared that the mutation order in favor of defendant No.1 being obtained with fraud and forgery, be set aside. Third relief is for permanent injunction.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that since the mutation order dated 09.01.2023 has already been set aside in appeal, therefore, the cause of action to file the suit has been wiped off and therefore, the Plaint had to be rejected.

6. The aforesaid assertion of learned counsel for the applicant is utterly misplaced because so far as the relief No.1 in this suit is concerned, i.e, declaration of title and declaration that whether the defendant No.1 is daughter of predeceased daughter of Amiya Kumar Mukherjee, which would always remain relevant between the parties.

7. Even so far as the issue of mutation is concerned, the Appellate Court has only remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to re-decide the matter. As per Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. in the matters of mutation, the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute in relation to any right which is recorded in the record of rights and in which the State Government has no stake. Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. is as under:-

111. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. — The Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the record-of-rights.

8. Therefore, even if the Revenue Courts are still seized of the issue of mutation, then also the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being a jurisdiction which is superior to that of Revenue Courts and the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts has to give way to jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters of mutation, therefore, mere pendency of mutation dispute before the Revenue Courts would not wipe off the cause of action. Rather, it would give a cause of action to the parties to file Civil suit for proper adjudication of issues of title.

9. In fact, a Full Bench of this Court has already decided the vexed issue of the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Courts in the matters of mutation in the following manner:-

" 75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referre