1 2025:CGHC:37814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 562 of 2004 1 - Sadh Ram S/o Anjor Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nondarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 2 - Akti Ram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-01- 2025. 2.1 - Gopi Lal S/o Akti Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Nandarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 2.2 - Moti Lal S/o Akti Ram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Nandarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 3 - Jagdeev (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-01- 2025. 3.1 - Kumharin Bai Wd/o Jagdev Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Nandarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 3.2 - Hemant Lal S/o Jagdev Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nandarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 3.3 - Prem Lal S/o Jagdev Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nandarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Amrito Bai D/o Late Son Sai Bhog Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Nondarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 2 - Amrika Bai D/o Late Son Sai Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Nondarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 3 - Chandrika Bai D/o Late Son Sai Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Nondarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 4 - Manturi Bai D/o Late Son Sai Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Nondarha Tahsil Kartala District Korba, C.G. 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba, C.G. ... Respondents 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30-07-2025 1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Korba, District – Korba in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2002 dated 19.10.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs was decreed and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were reversed. 2) This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 03.05.2005 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding that the plaintiffs were not the successors of deceased Sonsai? (2) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs are the successors of Sonsai is based on no evidence on record, and the same is perverse? ” 3) Facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and possession inter-alia on the ground that the suit property bearing total nine Khasra Nos., ad-measuring 13.15 acres situated at Village–Nondaraha, Tehsil–Kartala, District–Korba(C.G.) was mutated in their names along with the names of defendants No. 1 to 3 but defendants No. 1 to 3 managed to delete the names of the plaintiffs fraudulently and in a clandestine manner even though they have the right to their half share of the suit property. They pleaded that 3 their mother, namely Mankunwar, was initially married to one Mangloo Patel, and after the dissolution of her marriage, she performed marriage with Son Sai, and the plaintiffs are the daughters of Son Sai and Mankunwar; therefore, they have the right over the half share of the suit property. They further pleaded that the application for mutation was moved by the plaintiffs before the Tehsildar and it was rejected vide order dated 01.08.2000 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that they are the daughters of Son Sai. The order passed by the Tehsildar gave them a cause of action. 4) Family tree pertaining to the present case is as follows:- Budhwa Makundi Balmukund (died) (died in 1981 without any heirs) (died) Anjor Sai Ramkunwar Sonsai Sandharam (died in 1981) (Widow of Balmukund) Sadhram Aktiram Jadveev Amrito Amrika Chandrika Manturi 5) Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property as Son Sai was never married to Mankunwar and the plaintiffs are not the daughters of Son Sai and Mankunwar. They further pleaded that Mankunwar was married to one Mangloo Patel and thereafter, she 4 performed marriage with one Aghanu Patel and at present, she is residing with Aghanu Patel. They also pleaded that the plaintiffs were born while their mother was staying at her parental house, and Son Sai is not their biological father. 6) Learned trial Court framed 23 issues; parties led evidence and exhibited various documents. Plaintiffs examined Manturi Bai as PW/1, Akbar Khan S/o Naseeb Khan was examined as PW/2 and Ganpatram S/o Kashiram was examined as PW/3. Plaintiffs exhibited various documents marked as exhibits P/1/ to P/4. Document Exhibit P/2 would show that after the death of Anjor Sai, names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue entries in the years 1981-82. Document exhibit P/3 would show that initially, the entire suit property was recorded in the names of (i) Anjor Sai S/o Budhwa, (ii) Ramkunwar Wd/o Balmukund, (iii) Son Sai S/o Balmukund and (iv) Sandharam S/o Balmukund. Defendants examined Sadhram S/o Anjor Sai as DW/1 and Prem Singh as DW/2. They exhibited the revenue records and the application moved by the plaintiffs in the year 2000 before the Tehsildar. 7) Learned trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that they are the daughters of Son Sai, and they also failed to prove the fact that their mother, namely Mankunwar, had performed marriage with Son Sai after the dissolution of her earlier marriage with Mangloo Patel. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 09.11.2001. 8) Learned appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court, holding that Mankunwar was earlier married to Mangloo and although the witnesses have stated that Son Sai and Mankunwar never 5 performed the marriage, in the absence of evidence in this regard, it can be presumed that the plaintiffs are their illegitimate daughters. 9) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the plaintiffs have not proved the fact that Mankunwar was married to Son Sai, and the plaintiffs are the daughters born from that marriage. He further submits that the plaintiffs have not specified the year of marriage, the year of birth of the plaintiffs and witnesses have also not supported their contention; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly decided the suit against the plaintiffs. With regard to the substantial questions of law, he contends that the learned appellate Court, on presumption, held that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Son Sai and Mankunwar, though it is held that no marriage was solemnised between them. He further contends that the learned appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are illegitimate children of Son Sai, whereas there is no such pleading or evidence on record. He prays to allow this second appeal. 10) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs submits that the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records of the years 1981-82 after the death of Son Sai, and the entries made in the revenue record confer title in their favour. He further submits that initially, Mankunwar was married to one Mangloo Patel, and after the dissolution of that marriage, she performed marriage with Son Sai and the plaintiffs were born out of that marriage. He contends that the learned appellate Court has categorically recorded a finding to the effect that the plaintiffs are illegitimate children of Son Sai. He further contends that the marriage between Son Sai and Mankunwar and the paternity of the plaintiffs 6 have not been denied by the defendants; therefore, the burden to prove this fact was on the defendants, who failed to discharge this burden. He prays that this second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11) Learned State counsel supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. 12) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13) In para-7 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that Mankunwar was initially married to Mangloo Patel and after the dissolution of that marriage, she performed marriage with Son Sai R/o Village–Nondarha and the plaintiffs were born from that wedlock. However, the plaintiffs failed to establish this fact in evidence and in examination-in-chief. 14) In cross-examination, PW/1–Manturi Bai admitted that she and her sisters were staying in the house of her maternal uncle, and they were born in that house. She further admitted that they are six sisters, and in para 10, she has stated that she does not know the date and year of death of her father. In para-11, she has admitted the fact that earlier her mother was married to one Mangloo. PW/2–Akbar Khan in para-5 has stated that the plaintiffs were born in the house of Son Sai but failed to specify that they were born out of wedlock between Son Sai and Mankunwar. He has admitted the fact that earlier, Mankunwar was married to Mangloo Patel and at present, she is staying with Aghanu Patel. PW/3–Ganpatram in para-4 has stated that the plaintiffs were born in the house of Son Sai, and they are the daughters of Son Sai. 15) DW/1–Sadhram has denied that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Son Sai. With regard to the right of the plaintiffs over the suit property, he has specifically stated that they are not the daughters of Son Sai; therefore, they had no right. DW/2–Prem Singh has supported the case 7 of defendants No. 1 to 3. 16) In the present case, the plaintiffs failed to specify the date or year of marriage between Son Sai and Mankunwar, and there is no pleading as to when the marriage between Mangloo Patel and Mankunwar was dissolved. It is also not pleaded and proved that the plaintiffs were born during the currency of the marriage between Son Sai and Mankunwar. The learned trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in this regard and recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that they are the daughters of Son Sai. Learned appellate Court only on conjectures and surmises, recorded a finding that in the absence of evidence, it can be presumed that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Son Sai. The Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs are the illegitimate children of Son Sai, whereas there is no such pleading or evidence on record. Plaintiffs’ witnesses have not deposed with regard to the marriage between Son Sai and Mankunwar, and they have not stated as to when the plaintiffs were born. Thus, the date or year of their birth has neither been pleaded nor proved. Further, though the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records of the years 1981-82, it is a well-settled principle of law that the entries made in the revenue records do not confer any title or right over the suit property. 17) In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Kishore Kumar Versus Vittal K. Patkar reported in 2023 14 SCR 796 held as under :- 11. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title. 12. This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 223] held that mutation in revenue records 8 neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. 13. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors. [(1997) 7 SCC 137] wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. 14. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 802], this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows: “6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” 15. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 49] wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. 18) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of P. Kishore Kumar (supra), first substantial question of law is decided in negative and in favor of the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3 and the second substantial question of law is decided in affirmative in favor of the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3. 19) Accordingly, this second appeal stands allowed. No cost(s). 20) A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.05 17:58:43 +0530