Stranger to Will cannot challenge mutation based on testamentary disposition without established legal interest in estate.

The private respondent (R-4) sought mutation of land (Survey No. 2609/3/1) based on a Will executed by the deceased Ramkali Bai.

The Tehsildar initially dismissed the application for non-prosecution on 04.11.2024 but restored it on 06.12.2024 under Section 35(3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), subsequently allowing the mutation on 11.12.2024.

The petitioner, claiming rights via an agreement to sell from 1996 and adverse possession, challenged this. Although the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) set aside the mutation on 03.12.2025 finding it beyond revenue jurisdiction, the Additional Commissioner reversed the SDO's order on 26.02.2026, restoring the mutation in favor of R-4.

The petitioner’s civil suit for title had already been dismissed by a trial court and was pending first appeal at the time of this judgment.

1. Whether the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by ordering mutation based on a disputed Will while civil proceedings regarding title were pending

2. Whether the restoration of the mutation application by the Tehsildar under Section 35(3) of the MPLRC was legally valid

3. Whether the petitioner, as a claimant under an agreement to sell and adverse possession, has the locus standi to challenge a Will in summary mutation proceedings

The Court applied Sections 35(3), 109, and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding the restoration of cases and mutation procedures.

It relied on the settled legal principle that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer or extinguish title.

The court further applied the principle that an agreement to sell does not create ownership rights in immovable property but only a contractual right to seek specific performance

and that a plea of adverse possession does not confer title until declared by a competent civil court.

The Court reasoned that revenue authorities have the power to conduct summary inquiries and record entries based on prima facie evidence, such as a Will, subject to final adjudication by civil courts.

It found that because the petitioner is not a legal heir, legatee, or beneficiary of the deceased, he is a "stranger to the Will" and cannot invalidate it in summary proceedings based solely on suspicions of forgery.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims—an unforced agreement to sell and a dismissed suit for adverse possession—do not constitute established title.

Regarding procedure, the Court held that the Tehsildar did not err in restoring the case since the initial dismissal was for non-prosecution rather than on merits.

The Court concluded that the Additional Commissioner correctly prioritized the prima facie document (the Will) over the petitioner's unadjudicated claims.

The Court held that mutation entries are subject to the outcome of pending civil litigation and, in the absence of a stay order from a civil court, the revenue authorities are justified in updating records based on available testamentary documents.

The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the writ proceedings and shall not prejudice the parties' rights in the ongoing civil appeal.