Ipc
Adv. jaya dadhich
(Querist) 30 August 2013
This query is : Resolved
whether a mutation is valuable security and an offence u/s 466, 467,468, can be made out.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 31 August 2013
please read section 30
The words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
Illustration
A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a “valuable security”.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 31 August 2013
I believe mutation is a "document whereby any legal right is created".
Adv. jaya dadhich
(Querist) 31 August 2013
R/s i want citation against this that mutation is not a valuable security.
2.if any confidential document is copied then who has a right to sue , whether any private person or only concerned public servant in whose custody that document is?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 31 August 2013
Where and what are facts of your case?
Guest
(Expert) 31 August 2013
Dear Advocate jaya Dadhich,
When you have not been able even to present your question in proper sense, I wonder, what you will do with the citation?
Mutation makes a person owner with a clear title of the property, which has a great value. It is not understood, how you would prove the mutation as a valueless element?
However, had you discussed the real problem, rather than putting an academic question, the experts would have suggested you something based on their own interpretation of the matter.
Adv. jaya dadhich
(Querist) 31 August 2013
two sister of my father in law has filed a complaint that the mutation which was made after the death of my grandfather in law is wrong n false as it did not contain the names of those two sisters, whereas it is true that they are equal co sharers, but they has prayed to cancel the mutation and for this they have come u/s 420, 120-b, 466, 467, 468, 477 & 477A IPC so my submission is that how 466, 467, 468, 477 & 477A IPc is made out. We have not signed or given our appearance at the time of adding names of LR's of my grand fahter in law. there are 5 sons and 3 daughters of my grand fahter in law, now 1 daughrt is no more and her son also died and that deceased son has no male child, now whether the widow of that deceased son is entitled to share in property.
P. Venu
(Expert) 31 August 2013
Revenue records, prima facie, pinpoint title. However, it is a settled principle that revenue records are by themselves not conclusive evidence of the facts, which they purport to record. A catena of the judgments of the Privy Council, the Apex Court and various High Courts has emphasized this rule. A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held in Ramanna v. Samba Moorthy, AIR 1962 AP 361 as under:
"9.....In our view, the entries in the revenue records, though they may be relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, are not evidence of title. In Nirman Singh v. Rudra Patrab Narain Singh, 53, Ind App. 220 at p.227:98 Ind Cas 1013 at p.1017 = AIR 1926 PC 100 at p.103, it was observed at Page 227 (of Ind App): (at p. 103 of AIR) by the Judicial Committee as follows:
"The perusal by their Lordships of the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh leads their Lordships to think that it is to a great degree based on the mischievous but persistent error that the proceedings for the mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind, as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with the greater confidence that the Revenue for it will be paid."
10. In our view, therefore, though the entries in the Diglot register may be evidence, they are by themselves not conclusive evidence of the facts which they purport to record. It may turn out that they are in accord with the general bulk of the evidence in the case and they may supply gaps in it. When viewed in the light of other compelling circumstances from which inference contrary to such entries can be drawn, they may become unimportant and their value insignificant."
The Apex Court has sustained this principle in Sawrni vs. Inder Kaur 1996 SCALE(6) 333
"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. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment."
Persons, whose names are left out during mutation, can establish title through civil proceedings.
Guest
(Expert) 01 September 2013
Dear Jaya,
Your description still contains partial and incomplete information. The question arises, mutation was made on the basis of which false or forged record, false affidavit/application or facts and in whose names, i.e., sons only, and in which year the death of your grandfather-in-law occured?
Another question arises, what type of proof of forgery the sisters have and against whom?
Further, your supplementary question, "if any confidential document is copied then who has a right to sue, whether any private person or only concerned public servant in whose custody that document is" is still an academic question, as you have not discussed anything about the confidential document and what relation that document has with the present case and also who and what for want to sue whom?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 01 September 2013
For succession QUESTION arises of which state the case is?
For consideration of crime QUESTION arises who moved the application?What knowledge he is expected to have about other heirs?Was it intended?And so many others for which query is still veiled.
Adv. jaya dadhich
(Querist) 03 September 2013
thanx Adv. P. venu for mutation citations.
R/sirs,
my grand father in law expired on 23 may 1998, he left 4 different fields having diffrent measures, my father in law got entered the names of his 4 brothers along with his name in mutation of one particular khsara at SAMASYA SAMADHAN CAMP, at rajasthan. Now sisters of my father in law are saying that my father in law and my husband has not entered their names so they have moved an app. u/s 156(3) cr.p.c. for offence u/s 420, 120(b), 466, 467, 468, 477 and 477A of I.P.C.
NOW still it is not clear to me that if names of those sisters are not mentioned in mutation so how 420, 120(b), 466, 467, 468 477 n 477A ipc can be entertained.
At present we are saying that Magsitrate cannot proceed against us u/s 156(3) crpc becuase it is only an application, because petitioners (sisters) are only praying to send this app. for investigation to ploice n they have not demanded any other relief, so this app. cant be treated as complaint n magistrate proceed against us for investigation.
