Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revenue authorities had jurisdiction under Section 110 of the MPLR Code to decide mutation on the basis of an unregistered will and to adjudicate the genuineness and correctness of the will.
Analysis: Section 110 contemplates mutation on acquisition of right in land records, but the determination of rights on the basis of a contested will necessarily involves adjudication of title. Reading Section 31 with the proviso to Section 178 of the MPLR Code, the power of revenue authorities does not extend to deciding disputed questions of title, which must be left to the civil court. The absence of objections to public notice did not relieve the propounder of the will from proving it in accordance with law, and the revenue authority could not enter upon the issue of due execution and genuineness of the will. The mutation order, therefore, was without jurisdiction and a nullity.
Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the orders passed by the revenue authorities were set aside. The mutation based on the will could not be sustained, and the matter was left to be governed by the pending civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities exercising mutation powers cannot adjudicate disputed title or the genuineness of a will, as such questions fall within the exclusive domain of the civil court.