Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Mansoor Saheb (Dead) VS Salima (D) by LRs. ...

Mansoor Saheb (Dead) VS Salima (D) by LRs. - 2025 2 Supreme 624 : Under Mohammedan Law, partition while a person is alive between him and his heirs is impermissible. A partition done during the lifetime of an ancestor is not valid, even if recorded in a revenue entry. The purpose of a mutation entry is limited to revenue records and does not confer any title or create legal rights in the property. Therefore, an oral partition by an ancestor without a formal legal transfer (such as a valid gift) does not result in a valid transfer of ownership, and the absence of a revenue entry does not affect the legal validity of the transfer—because no valid transfer occurred in the first place. The mere nomenclature of ''''partition'''' in a mutation entry does not override the legal principle that such a partition during lifetime is impermissible under Mohammedan Law.Checking relevance for Abdul Rejak Laskar VS Mafizur Rahman...

Abdul Rejak Laskar VS Mafizur Rahman - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1232 : Under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886, an oral partition by an ancestor does not constitute a valid or enforceable partition for legal purposes if no revenue entry has been made. Section 97 of the Regulation provides that a person may claim imperfect partition only if they are in actual possession of the interest and have the consent of recorded co-sharers holding more than half of the estate. Furthermore, Section 154(1)(e) bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over claims for imperfect partition unless a perfect partition could not be claimed and was refused by revenue authorities on the ground that the resulting estate would be liable for less than five rupees in annual revenue. Therefore, an oral partition without a revenue entry and without compliance with statutory requirements (such as possession and consent) is not legally recognized, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such a claim.Checking relevance for Narayan Laxman Patil VS Gala Construction Company Private Limited...

Checking relevance for Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust VS Balakrishna Bhat Since Deceased By His Lrs. ...

Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust VS Balakrishna Bhat Since Deceased By His Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1025 : An oral partition by an ancestor does not create a valid legal title or entitlement to revenue rights if no formal mutation entry is made in the revenue records under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that even if an oral partition occurred, the absence of a report to the prescribed officer within three months of acquisition (as required under Section 128) renders any subsequent entry in the Record of Rights invalid. The respondents failed to produce any such report or registered document, and their admission before the Land Tribunal that they did not possess the land or have tenancy rights further negated their claim. Therefore, an oral partition without a proper revenue mutation entry does not confer legal protection or validity under the revenue records, and such entries can be lawfully deleted.Checking relevance for Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs VS Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh...

Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs VS Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh - 2023 3 Supreme 407 : An oral partition by an ancestor, even without a formal revenue entry or instrument of partition, can effectively sever the joint status of co-sharers if the Revenue Officer has made a final decision on the property to be divided and the mode of partition. In this case, the Assistant Collector''''s order dated 31.07.1982, which accepted the ''''Naksha Be'''' and allocated specific khasra numbers to the parties, constituted a completed partition. The subsequent failure to prepare a formal instrument of partition under Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act did not prevent the partition from being effective. The joint status was severed on the date of the Revenue Officer''''s decision (31.07.1982), and the plaintiff lost his status as a co-sharer by that date, which affected his right of pre-emption. Thus, an oral partition with a final administrative decision by the Revenue Officer is legally sufficient to terminate joint ownership, even in the absence of a formal revenue entry.Checking relevance for Sujan Singh VS Karan Singh...

Checking relevance for Raj Rani alias Samitra Devi (now deceased) through LR VS Lakhpat Rai...

Raj Rani alias Samitra Devi (now deceased) through LR VS Lakhpat Rai - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2826 : Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an oral partition of property by an ancestor does not confer joint ownership if there is no entry made in the revenue record or the records of the revenue authority. This means that even if a partition was verbally agreed upon, it will not be legally recognized unless it is formally recorded in the revenue records.

• Oral partition and revenue entries:
• Many cases acknowledge the existence of oral partition claims supported by revenue records, but emphasize that revenue entries alone do not confer or extinguish title. Revenue records are administrative and do not substitute for clear legal proof of partition or transfer of title. For example, it is noted that the entries in revenue records do not convey title and the mutation process is primarily administrative ["RAJAMMAL vs PALANIAMMAL - Madras"], ["DAMODAR BADRINARAYAN BHANDARI vs VISHNU DAGDU DAREKAR (DECEASED) THR. LRS. BALKRUSHNA VISHNU DAREKAR AND ORS. - Bombay"].
• Several judgments highlight that revenue entries, such as khasra or mutation entries, are indicators of possession or possession rights but are not conclusive proof of legal partition or transfer of ownership. A revenue entry is an indicator of possession but does not create or extinguish the right from the property ["MANGRU VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION - Allahabad"], ["GANGAMMA W/O LATE CHANNABASAVEGOWDA Vs MULLAMMA - Karnataka"].
• Claims of oral partition are often contested, with courts requiring clear, definite evidence beyond revenue entries to establish such partition. Admissions or declarations before tribunals (e.g., Land Revenue Tribunal) are considered but are not always conclusive, especially if not supported by other evidence. The admission before Land Reforms Tribunal is not conclusive proof of oral partition ["D. AMARENDER REDDY AND 6 OTHERS vs D. PRABHAKAR REDDY AND 4 OTHERS - Telangana"].
• In many cases, the absence of formal mutation or registration of partition, despite revenue records indicating separate possession, leads courts to conclude that no valid partition has taken place. The fact that partition has not been done till date is often accepted and noted as significant ["DAMODAR BADRINARAYAN BHANDARI vs VISHNU DAGDU DAREKAR (DECEASED) THR. LRS. BALKRUSHNA VISHNU DAREKAR AND ORS. - Bombay"], ["DAMODAR BADRINARAYAN BHANDARI vs VISHNU DAGDU DAREKAR (DECEASED) THR. LRS. BALKRUSHNA VISHNU DAREKAR AND ORS. - Bombay"].
• Revenue entries without formal mutation or registration:
• Revenue entries, such as khasra or mutation records, are primarily for revenue purposes and do not automatically confer or extinguish ownership rights. The courts stress that mutation entries are only limited to revenue records and do not confer title ["Mansoor Saheb (Dead) VS Salima (D) by LRs. - 2025 2 Supreme 624"], ["Hanoman VS Joint Director of Consolidation, Faizabad - Allahabad"].
• When revenue entries are relied upon to claim partition or ownership, courts often require corroborative evidence, such as possession, deeds, or formal registration, to establish legal title. The revenue entries are not to be taken as positive evidence of title ["RAJAMMAL vs PALANIAMMAL - Madras"].
• Effect of non-registration or non-recording of oral gift/partition:
• The absence of formal registration or mutation of an oral gift or partition does not necessarily invalidate the claim but indicates that the property has not been legally transferred or partitioned. Courts often find that had Sultan Saheb intended to gift the property, it ought to have been recorded as a gift in the Mutation Entry ["Mansoor Saheb (Dead) VS Salima (D) by LRs. - 2025 2 Supreme 624"].
• In cases where the property remains undivided legally despite revenue records showing separate possession, courts tend to uphold the status quo, unless clear evidence of formal partition or gift is presented. The mere revenue entry does not create or extinguish the right ["DAMODAR BADRINARAYAN BHANDARI vs VISHNU DAGDU DAREKAR (DECEASED) THR. LRS. BALKRUSHNA VISHNU DAREKAR AND ORS. - Bombay"].Analysis and Conclusion:While revenue records and mutation entries can indicate possession or family arrangements, they are not definitive proof of legal partition or transfer of ownership when done orally. Courts require clear, corroborative evidence—such as formal deeds, registration, or consistent possession—to establish that an oral partition has been legally effected. The failure to record or formalize such partition often results in the property being regarded as undivided, with revenue entries serving only administrative purposes and not affecting title rights. Therefore, an oral partition without corresponding revenue entry or registration, especially if contested, generally does not suffice to establish legal ownership or extinguish co-ownership rights ["Mansoor Saheb (Dead) VS Salima (D) by LRs. - 2025 2 Supreme 624"] ["RAJAMMAL vs PALANIAMMAL - Madras"].