Usually, it is seen in practice that people lay a lot of emphasis on mutation of a property in the revenue records at the time of buying the property. If there is no mutation in the name of the seller, many a time, the buyer would think that the title of the seller is defective notwithstanding the fact that the property is registered in his name.
However, there are judgments of the Supreme Court which clearly lay down that mutation of a property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title of the party concerned.
In the case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, the Supreme Court noted that the lower appellate court (Additional District Judge) had been swayed away by the so-called mutation in the revenue record in favour of the respondent (Inder Kaur). It was held that 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 Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of the respondent conveys title in her favour and that this erroneous conclusion had vitiated the entire judgment.
In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137, the Supreme Court followed the above legal principle and held that the person concerned had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of a particular mutation of the property.
Likewise, in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191, Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid legal principle that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
Again applying the above principle of law, the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259, held that merely because a person’s name was recorded in the Survey Settlement as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.
Thus, the law in this regard is very clear that mutation of a property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such property nor has it any presumptive value on the title.
As we had entered agreement to sell in 1997 of my living flat and received the allotment letter after paying full amount but landowner was not ready to execute our sale deed due to the dispute between builder and landowner ( demanding extra money). We are paying the electricity bill, taxes, maintenance etc.but now in 2018 he has falsely mutated our flats on his name and also the tax receipt is issued on his name. Plz guide us accordingly what steps we should take now to protect our flats.
very good and useful article it is for every one. . Sir