Pushpa Gupta v. Brijmohan Gupta

: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 15/04/2026

Heard.

Present is the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated

02.02.2026 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge Junior Division Surajpur, District- Surajpur, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 124-A/2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC has been allowed and the mutation of the names of defendants in the revenue records on the basis of subject will is restrained.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are defendant no. 3 to 5 against whom the respondent no. 1 is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction. It is the claim of the plaintiff before the learned trial court that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2, and after death of their father, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2 are having equal share over the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Late Laxmi Prasad Gupta was having two wives and due to their family dispute, he transferred some of the lands separately in their favour and the first wife of Late Laxmi Prasad Gupta had alienated 3 her part of the land to one Mohd. Mahmood Khan and went to Ambikapur. The remaining part of the land was given to the second wife which has been shown in Schedule-C of the plaint. The said Schedule-B and Schedule-C property of the plaint is the suit property. Late Laxmi Prasad Gupta has executed a will in favour of the defendant no. 3 to 5 on 27.09.2022 and 04.01.2023. Laxmi Prasad Gupta has died on 16.01.2024 thereafter the defendant no. 3 to 5 made an application before the revenue authority for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the basis of the said will executed by Late Laxmi Prasad Gupta. However, an objection was raised by the plaintiff before the revenue authorities and has filed this suit. He would further submit that the mutation is the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and the civil court cannot seized the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Even otherwise, the mutation cannot be stayed as it does not create or extinguish any right over the property in favor of any of the parties and it is only a process to keep the record updated. Yet the learned trial court restrained the mutation of their names in the revenue record. Therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

From perusal of the copy of the plaint annexed at Annexure P/2, it transpires that the plaintiff has challenged the execution of Will Deed in favor of the defendants no. 3 to 5 and prayed for declaring the said deed as null and void. The claim of the 4 defendants no. 3 to 5 is based on the said Will which has already been challenged by the suit. True it is, that the mutation proceeding is the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, but the learned trial court, in the present case, exercised its jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and to prevent the multiplicity of the litigation, restrained the parties for mutation of the names of respondent no. 3 to 5 in the revenue records.

Considering the various pronouncements of this Court with respect to the powers of the revenue authorities to examine the validity of the Will, the trial court has passed the order. The learned trial court has also observed in its order about the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 802 and has passed the order restraining for mutation of the names of the respondents no. 3 to 5 which were claimed on the basis of subject Will.

From perusal of the impugned order as well as other documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Madhurima