Prolonged cohabitation creates a presumption of marriage and paternity, shifts burden of proof to contesting party.

The dispute involves the mutation of agricultural lands totaling 1.392 hectares in Village Rajapura, originally owned by Late Devilal.

Upon Devilal’s death, Petitioner No. 1 (Jainobai) claimed to be his wife, and Petitioners Nos. 2-6 claimed to be his children.

The Tahsildar initially ordered mutation in favor of Respondent No. 1 (Parobai), recognizing her as the sole legal wife and rejecting the petitioners’ status.

On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) reversed this, finding that public documents (voter IDs, ration cards, revenue entries) established Jainobai’s long-standing status as Devilal’s wife.

The Additional Commissioner modified this, holding that while Jainobai (as a second wife) could not inherit, her children were entitled to shares.

The Board of Revenue set aside these orders and restored the Tahsildar’s order, questioning the validity of the marriage and the parentage of the children.

The petitioners challenged this via Article 226.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code by re-appreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioners' status.

2. Whether long-term cohabitation supported by public documents creates a legal presumption of marriage and legitimacy for mutation purposes.

3. Whether mutation proceedings, being fiscal in nature, can be used to adjudicate complex substantive civil rights regarding legitimacy and succession.

Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is confined to jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities rather than reassessment of evidence.

The settled legal principle that prolonged cohabitation between a man and a woman creates a strong presumption of a valid marriage.

Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature, intended for updating revenue records, and do not create or extinguish title or finally adjudicate complex questions of legitimacy, which remain the domain of the Civil Court.

The High Court found that the Board of Revenue acted beyond its jurisdiction by re-evaluating oral and documentary evidence as if it were a court of first appeal.

The Court noted that the petitioners provided "overwhelming" documentary evidence, including revenue records and government-issued IDs, which described Petitioner No. 1 as the wife of the deceased for decades.

The Court kritiqued the Board for erroneously shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioners, holding that once long-standing public documents were produced, the burden lay on the respondents to rebut the presumption of marriage with "convincing evidence," which they failed to do.

The Court emphasized that the Board's dismissal of official public records in favor of selective oral testimony was legally unsustainable and perverse.

It held that the SDO and Additional Commissioner’s findings were well-reasoned and aligned with the presumption of marriage arising from continuous cohabitation.

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Board of Revenue’s order dated 08.05.2019, and restored the SDO’s order as modified by the Additional Commissioner (directing mutation in favor of the respondents and the children of Petitioner No. 1). The revenue authorities were directed to update records within 60 days.

The Court clarified that these findings are limited to mutation proceedings and do not preclude parties from seeking a final adjudication of title in a Civil Court.