1 2025:CGHC:31473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 25-4-2025 Delivered on 09-07-2025 SA No. 274 of 2011 1. Kunj Lal S/o Lakhan Lal, Aged About 30 Years Caste Lodhi, Occupation Farmer, R/o Village Maditarai, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).............(Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1. Lakhan Lal S/o Jhadu Ram Verma, Aged About 64 Years Occupation Farmer, R/o Village Maditarai Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2. Deceased (Khorbahrin Bai) Through Lrs- 2.1 - (A) Fuliya Bai W/o Hariram, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Ramatola, P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - (B) Shanti Bai W/o Ganeshram, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jhandatalab, P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2.3 - (C) Vimla Bai W/o Ramprasad, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Ravampura, P.S. Bodtalab, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2.4 - (D) Chamarin Bai W/o Ramkumar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar, Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Suman, D/o Jhadu Ram Verma, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Service And Farmer, R/o Village Maditarai Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). 2 5. Sampat Lal, S/o Gendmal Jain, Address - Leela Apartment, Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Pin – 491441. 6. Lal Chand, S/o Prem Lal Satnami, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 7. Mulchand, S/o Prem Lal Satnami, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 8. Ramesh, S/o Prem Lal Satnami, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 9. Jeevanchand, S/o Prem Lal Satnami, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 10. Sudarshan, S/o Kalaram, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 11. Sundarlal, S/o Punu, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 12. Hiraram, S/o Dhanuk Lal Verma, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 13. Devraj S/o Bhaggulodhi, R/o Village Kolendra Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant. : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate. For respondents No. 6 to 13 : Ms. Akanksha Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. D.P. Mishra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) C A V Judgment 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 13-7- 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2007 by which the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 2-11-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class 3 1, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on 26-9-2012 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(I). Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse and erroneous in holding that the defendant No.2 Khorbahrin is the only owner of the suit property left by her father late Kejuram despite the findings of the courts below that since 1954, plaintiff”s father Lakhanlal is recorded as co-owner of the suit property?. (ii) Whether plaintiff’s father Lakhan Lal can be said to be co- owner of the suit land on the basis of entry of his name in the record of right of 1954 prepared under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954?”. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court. 4. Brief Facts:- A. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction mainly contending that the Defendant No. 1 Lakhanlal has given the land as described in Schedule “A” of the plaint situated at village Kolendra on partition to the plaintiff and also allowed him to record his name in the revenue records and since then the plaintiff is utilizing the said property peacefully and doing the agricultural work on the said land. B. One Kejuram s/o. Shuddhu Ram who owned the suit land had adopted defendant No. 1 Lakhan Lal from his childhood died prior to 23 years, as such the said land is in peaceful possession of defendant No. 1 and this fact is known to the defendants No. 2 and 4 3, but they have not interfered, therefore, on the basis of adverse possession also, the plaintiff has become title holder of the suit property described in Schedule “A” of the plaint. C. It is also case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff has obtained the suit property in partition then he had requested the defendant No.1 Lakhan to record the name of the plaintiff in revenue records regarding suit property, but the defendants No. 2 and 3 have not allowed him to record his name and have threatened him to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that names of defendant No. 2 Khorbahrin Bai and Defendant No. 3 Suman were also recorded in the revenue records, therefore, they have been arrayed as party to the suit. On the strength of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title with regard to suit property received by him on partition, his name may also be recorded in the revenue records and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 Lakhanlal from interference in the suit property. 5. The defendant No. 1 Lakhanlal has filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the property described in Schedule “A” of the plaint has been given to the plaintiff on partition, he has acquired the title and he is in peaceful possession of the suit property. It has also been contended that the defendant No.1 Lakhan has no right over the property. Thereafter, a compromise has been arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and on the basis of compromise, a compromise decree was passed on 25-4-1992 5 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Dongargarh. Thereafter, defendants No. 2 and 3 moved an application for setting aside the decree which was allowed and they have filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and counter claim also been filed by them mainly contending that: A. The description regarding parties has wrongly been given in the cause title as the plaintiff Kunj Lal is son of defendant No. 1 Lakhan Lal and Kuleshwari Bai. They have also stated that the plaintiff was born from the wedlock of Lakhan Lal and Kuleshwari Bai who is second wife of defendant No.1. Kuleshwari Bai was residing with plaintiff Kunj Lal and Lakhan Lal at village Maditarai, Tahsil Dongargarh and Kunj Lal is in custody of Lakhanlal, therefore, Lakhanlal is guardian of Kunjlal. In fact, they intend to grab the property of defendant No. 2 Khorbahrin Bai and the defendant No. 3 Suman has done this conspiracy. B. It has also been contended that the suit property is ancestral property belonging to Kejuram who is father of Defendant No. 2 Khorbahrin Bai. Khorbahrin Bai being only child of Kejuram, therefore, after his death she became title holder of the suit property. As such, it is parental property of Khorbahrin Bai, family tree was also mentioned in the written statement. It has also been contended that after death of Kejuram the name of Khorbahrin should have been recorded, but defendant No. 1 by committing fraud has recorded his name and due to compulsion, he has also recorded name of his another son Suman also. It has also been 6 contended that the mutation proceedings have been done in a clandestinely manner without notice to her or without publication of the notice in the newspaper, as such the plaintiffs’ father has no right over the suit property. The defendants have denied the partition and contended that they have right over the suit property and it is in their possession. As such, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. C. It is also the case of the defendants that Kunjlal has sold the property to the persons as described in the plaint and has also prayed that the sale deed executed during pendency of the suit between the plaintiff, Sampat Lal, Devraj, Lalchand, Mulchand, Ramesh, Jeevan Chand, Sudarshan, Sunderlal and Heeraram are not binding upon them. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed amendment application and arrayed Sampatlal, Lalchand, Mulchand, Ramesh, Jeevachand, Sudarshan, Sunderlal, Heeraram and Devraj as defendant No. 5 to 13 in this case. 6. The plaintiff has also filed reply to the counter claim denying all the allegations made in the counter claim. It has also been contended that the counter claim of the defendant No. 2 and 3 is without any foundation as the plaintiff has obtained the property in partition under its legal right. The other defendants namely Hiraram, Sudarshan, Sunderlal and Sampatlal have also filed their written statement, counter claim wherein they have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7 7. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court has framed as many as 13 issues. Issues No.2, 4, 6-A and 6-B, 8 & 9 are relevant which are as under: Þ2-& D;k y[ku izfr- Ø-&1] dstw ds xksniq= ds ukrs okn Hkwfe ij LoRo vftZr fd;k\ 4-& D;k izfrdqy dCts ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks LoRo vftZr gqvk gS\ 6¼d½-& D;k y[ku izfr-Ø-&1 ,oa lqeu izfr-Ø-&3 ds e/; iwoZ esa caVokjk gks pqdk gS\ ¼[k½& D;k xzke dksysUnzk fLFkr oknHkwfe y[ku izfr-Ø-&1 dks ,oa xzke ekM+hrjkbZ fLFkr Hkwfe lqeu izfr-Ø-&3 dks caVokjk esa izkIr gqvk gS\ 8-& D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe y[ku izfr-Ø-&1] [kksjcgjhu izfr-Ø-&2 ,oa lqeu izfr-Ø-&3 ds la;qDr Hkwfe gS\ ;fn gk¡ rks izR;sd dk fdruk va’k gS\ 9-& D;k oknh dqatyky }kjk oknHkwfe ds laca/k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= [kksjcgjhu izfr-Ø-&2 ,oa lqeu izfr-Ø-&3 ij cU/kudkjh ugha gS\Þ 8. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has exhibited documents ie., right of records from 1954-55 (Ex.P/1), Kistband Katauni (from 1958 to 1985 (Ex.P/2 to P/15). Plaintiff himself examined as PW/1, Bahruram (PW/2) and Dheluram (PW/3). 9. PW/1 Kunjlal in his cross-examination has admitted that when the land was given to him, at that time the names of Khorbaharin Bai and Suman were also recorded. He has also admitted that he has not produced any document, in which the name of only Lakhanlal has been shown as the suit land was belonging to his maternal grand-father. He has also admitted that Lakhan Lal’s mother is Khorbahrin Bai and also admitted that Khorbahrin Bai is only daughter of Kejuram. He has further admitted that Khorbahrin Bai was living at Maditarai and also 8 admitted that Khorbahrin Bai has two sons namely Lakhanlal and Suman. He has also stated that he has not obtained any document regarding partition in favour of Lakhanlal, but only Rinpustika has been received and he has also stated that he is not aware that whether Rinpustika has been submitted before the Court or not and also admitted that he has not produced any document to show that only Lakhanlal was in possession of the suit property. He further states that he is not aware that Suman and Khorbahrin Bai have submitted any document that they intend to give the land to Lakhan Lal. He has also admitted that during pendency of the suit only he has sold the property to Sampatlal, Lalchand, Mulchand, Ramesh, Jeevan, Premlal, Sudharshan, Sunderlal, Heeraram and Devraj. 10. The defendants exhibited documents ie., sale deed (Ex.D/1 to D/9) of various properties) and examined DW/1 Lakhanlal, DW/2 Suman, DW/3 Gambhir, DW/4 Ledhgu (for defendant No.2), Sudarshan (PW/5) (for defendant No.5), Devraj (DW/6) Dhanuklal (DW/7) (for defendant No.5) and Sunderlal (DW/8). DW/1 Lakhanlal has admitted in the cross-examination that the suit land measuring 12.19 acres was recorded in the names of Suman and Khorbahrain Bai. He has admitted that he has given the land measuring 12.19 acres in partition to his son Kunjlal. He has also admitted that before giving the said land to Kunjlal, he has not obtained any consent from Khorbahrin Bai and Suman. He has also admitted that before giving the land in partition, he has not moved any application for deleting the names of Khorbahrin Bai and Suman. 9 11. DW/2 Suman was cross examined wherein he has stated that his father died in the year 1975 and Khorbahrin Bai has two sons ie., Suman and Lakhan. He has also admitted that his family is having the land at village Maditarai and Kolendra and also stated that at the time death of Kejuram, at village Kolendra 12.19 acres of land was in existence. He has denied that before 1954-55 in the suit land, the names of his grand- father namely Kejuram and his brother Lakhan were also recorded, after death of his grand-father Kejuram, his mother has moved an application for recording her name in the revenue records, then his name and his brother’s name Lakhanlal along with the name of Khorbahrin Bai were recorded. He has stated that Lakhan has not sold the property to Kunjlal but only his name was recorded. He has also stated that in the suit property at village Kolendra, Lakhan, his mother Khorbahrin Bai, along with servants were doing the agricultural work. He has specifically admitted that no partition has taken place between Lakhanlal and Suman. He has also denied that at the time of partition of land situated at village Maditarai, his brother has given consent that his land situated at village Kolendra was only given to Lakhan. He has denied that Lakhan was doing the agricultural work on the land situated at Kolendra, therefore, they have stated that name of Lakhan should be recorded. 12. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim by recording its finding that Khorbahrin Bai is the sole owner of the suit property situated at village Kolendra and during pendency of the suit, the sale deed 10 executed by the plaintiff is not binding upon Khorbahrin Bai and she is entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit property. Learned trial Court has also directed that the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 13 will hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property to defendant No.2 Khorbahrin Bai within 30 days. 13. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has filed the First Appeal before the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12-7-2011 has dismissed the appeal. Learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has recorded its finding with regard to title of Khorbahrin Bai on the basis of revenue records which is legal and justified and not liable to be interfered. The learned First Appellate Court has also recorded its finding that as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act, 1956”) defendant No.2 Khorbahrin Bai is the sole owner of the suit property and it falls within the ambit of Stridhan. Learned trial Court has also taken note of Section 8 of the Act, 1956 that after death of a Hindu male, the property will be given first to legal heirs of category in class 1 of the Schedule and as per Section 9 of the Act, 1956, list of Class 1 heirs among the heirs is specified in Schedule includes son, daughter, widow, mother and son and daughter of earlier died son and daughter, when it is not in dispute that Khorbahrin Bai is the only daughter of late Kejuram, then as per list of Class -1, Khorbahrin Bai falls within the ambit of legal heirs and she is entitled to get the suit property and during life time of Khorbahrin Bai, her two sons namely defendant No.1 Lakhan and defendant No.3 Suman do 11 not fall within the ambit of legal heirs of Class-1., therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved with this order, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and also committed illegality that defendant No.2 Khorbahrin Bai is the only owner of the suit property of her father late Keju Ram, despite this finding of the court below that since 1954 during minority of defendant No.1 his name was recorded in revenue record by the revenue authority as co-owner with late Keju Ram with consent of Kejuram and co-tenant, till his death. He would further submit that the defendant No. 3 did not raise objection when his minor son namely Lakhanlal was adopted by her father and started living with him. Thereafter, she did not raise objection, when the name of her son was recorded as co-tenant in revenue record with owner of the land which was continued till death of her father. Now after lapse of 40-45 years the respondents No. 2 & 3 cannot raise objection regarding creation of right in favour of the defendant No. 1 in the year 1954-55, when the Hindu law was not codified. He would further submit that the learned both the Courts below erred in holding that the suit property is exclusive property of Khorbahrin and her sons have no right over it. He would further submit that the learned Courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff has no right over the suit property through his father and he had sold the suit property. He would further submit that the learned 12 Courts below ought to have held that the counter claim filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 was not valued properly and there is jurisdictional error by trying the same by incompetent court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would further submit that as per Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1954 (for short, “the Code 1954”), the name of plaintiff’s father namely defendant No.1 Lakhan has been recorded as Bhoomiswami, Section 103 of the Code of 1954 provides for record of rights and Section 105 of the Code of 1954 provides that until made in the records of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. He would further submit that the document Ex.P/1 has been prepared on the basis of jamabandi 1954-55 which was prepared in accordance with Section 103 of the Code of 1954 and it has presumptive value under Section 105(6) of the said Code and would pray that substantial question of law be answered in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhote Khan and others vs. Malkhan and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 575, Raja Rajinder Chand vs. Mst. Sukhi and others, reported in AIR 1957 SC 2867 and Abdul Waheed Khan vs. Bhawani and others, 1966 AIR 1718. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the findings recorded by the learned both the courts below are concurrent findings of fact that Khorbahrin Bai is the sole legal heir of late Kejuram, as such the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is 13 legal and justified which does not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court is in accordance with Hindu Succession Act as Khorbahrin Bai being daughter of Kejuram, therefore, her name should also be recorded being Class -1 legal heir, therefore, the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in recording their findings. He would further submit that the appellant will not get any benefit out of the provisions of Sections 103, 105 and 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code though the same has presumptive value and may be correct and true, but it does not give any right to the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act before amendment and even after amendment. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 18. To appreciate the substantial question of law, it is expedient for this Court to extract Sections 8, 9 and Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1954, and Sections 103, 105 and 115 of the CG Land Revenue Code, which will be referred at appropriate stage of the judgment. Finding and discussion on substantial question of law No. 1: 19. To appreciate this substantial question of law, it is expedient for this Court to extract Sections 8, 9 and Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as under: “Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act: 8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:― (a) firstly, 14 upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. Section 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.―Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre- deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son 1 [son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre- deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son”. From perusal of provisions of Sections 8, 9 and Schedule-I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is quite vivid that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-I of the Schedule. The Section 9 of the Act of 1956 provides that among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in Class-I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs, those in the first entry in Class-II shall be preferred to those in second entry and those who are in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry so on in succession. The defendant No. 2 being daughter whose father died intestate in the year 1965 as evident from DW/2 Suman who has stated in his evidence recorded on 13-9- 15 2007 that his maternal grand-father expired prior to 42 years which has not been rebutted by the plaintiff by recording evidence. As such, provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will be applicable in the facts of the case. Therefore, defendant No.2 Khorbahrin Bai will fall within the ambit of Class-I category of heirs and the defendant No. 1 and 3 being son of defendant No. 2 will fall in Class-II category. In the present case, the defendant No. 2 being daughter of Kejuram will inherit the property of her father on account of Class-I heir and the defendant No. 1 has no right to acquire the property or to give it to the partition to his son plaintiff, as such the whole alleged partition is contrary to the law, therefore, the defendant No. 2 cannot be held only owner of the suit property left by his maternal grand-father. Learned trial Court has also recorded its fidning that the adoption of defendant No.2 has not been proved by the plaintiffl. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity or erroneous one which warrants interference. Thus, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered against the appellant/plaintiff. Finding and discussion on substantial question of law No. 2: 20. To appreciate this substantial question of law, it is expedient for this Court to extract Sections 103, 105 and 115 of the CG Land Revenue Code, which read as under: "103. Record-of-rights--A record-of-rights shall be prepared and maintained for every village and such record shall include the following particulars:-- a) the names of all persons, other than tenants, who are holders of land ; 16 b) the names of all occupancy tenants and protected lessees; c) the nature and extent of the respective interests of such persons and the conditions or liabilities, if any, attaching thereto ; d) the rent or land revenue, if any, payable by such persons ; and e) such other particulars as may be prescribed." 105. (1) The patwari shall enter in a register of mutations every acquisition of right of the kind specified under section 103 which is reported to him under section 104 or otherwise comes to his notice. (2) Whenever the patwari makes an entry in the register of mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in any place of public resort appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation. (3) Should any objection to an entry made under sub- section (1) in the register of mutations be made either orally or in writing to the patwari, he shall enter the particulars of the objection in a register of disputed cases. The patwari shall at once give a written acknowledgment for the objection to the person making it in the prescribed form. (4) Every entry in the register of mutations shall be tested, and, if found correct, or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by, and objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be disposed of by such officers and in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) Entries in the register of mutations, when duly certified, shall be transferred to the record-of-rights in the manner prescribed. (6) An entry in the record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. Section 115 of the Code 1954 provides records-of-rights at commencement of the Code which reads as under: -"115. Records-of-rights at commencement of Code.-- (1) Until a record-of-rights for the Central Provinces and merged territories is prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 103 the jamabandi for the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which this Code comes into force, shall, so far as it contains the particulars specified in section 103, be deemed to be the record-of rights. (2) The jamabandi referred to in sub-section (1) shall be published in the village in such manner as may be directed by the Collector. 17 (3) Objections may be filed to any entry in the jamabandi and the provisions of section 105 shall apply to the objections as they apply to an entry in the mutation register and the entries shall be corrected after certification as provided for in that section." 21. From the evidence and material on record and from the genealogy of the family, it is quite vivid that the defendant No. 2 Khorbahrin Bai is daughter of Kejuram who possessed the suit property and after his death defendant No. 2 will inherent the suit property as no other legal heir of Kejuram is in existence. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of the facts that plaintiff is unable to establish before the Courts below that partition between defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 has taken place. The defendant No. 3 in his evidence has also stated that no partition has taken place between them and by committing fraud, the defendant No. 1 has recorded his name. The plaintiff is unable to establish source of acquiring the property, as such mainly recording of the name in the revenue record does not confirm any title of the suit property. It is well settled position of law that there is no universal principle that whatever will appear in the records of right will be presumed to be correct when there exists evidence to the contrary. Even from perusal of Section 105(4) of Land Revenue Code, 1954 every entry in the register of mutation should be tested and if it is found correct then it should be certified, then only it should be transferred to record of rights and as defined under Section 103 of the Land Revenue Code, 1954. The Section 105(6) provides that an entry in the records of the right shall be presumed to be proved unless the controversy is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted. Therefore, it is incumbent 18 upon the plaintiff to establish that the entries in record of rights have been dully certified then only it has been transferred to the records of right. But the plaintiff has not placed any evidence on record to establish that he can be co-owner of the suit land on the basis of records of right of 1954 (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/15). 22. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that mutation of records would not divest the owner of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar reported in 2023 INSC 1009 had held in paragraphs 11 to 15, 21 and 22 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. held that mutation in revenue records 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. 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 itendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 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.5 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.” 21. It is also curious to note that the plaintiff has placed on record endorsements issued by the Commissioner in favour of four other tenants, but has failed to produce one in his own vendor’s name. We cannot help but take an adverse view of the same against the plaintiff, since it only goes 19 towards making denser the cloud which has been cast on the plaintiff’s title. 22. Contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that through the record of rights the plaintiff has established his title by a preponderance of probabilities is not sustainable. As noted above, the plaintiff failed to produce a single document of title in respect of the suit property. In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out the lacunae in the defendant’s title would not suffice. Having instituted the suit for declaration, the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish the probability of better title, which the plaintiff in the present case, has manifestly failed to do. Therefore, the substantial question of law No. 2 framed by this Court is answered against the appellant/plaintiff by recording the finding that plaintiff’s father Lakhan Lal cannot be said to be title holder of the suit land on the basis of entry made in the records of right in absence of any document of title in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant No.1. 23. Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 24. The interim order passed by this Court on 23.01.2012 is vacated. No order as to costs. 25. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.07.10 11:38:04 +0530