���� Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
��
(2015) 42 SCD 617
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(V. Gopala Gowda) and (C. Nagappan) JJ.
April 17 , 2015
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P. R. Ramasesh,Adv.
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3725-3726 OF 2015
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of 2011]
H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. .. Appellants
-vs-
L. Venkatesh Reddy .. Respondent
����
Contents
1 Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And ors. [(1997) 7 SCC 137].
2 Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs. Vs. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635
3 Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 545).
3.1 9. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel apearing for the appellants, 1st defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
4 Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223
4.1 “7. … Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
4.2 In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion is liable to be set aside.
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा