Mutation on an unregistered will and the Section 207 bar

Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, read with Schedule III, gives revenue courts exclusive jurisdiction over suits and applications concerning khatedari rights, declaration of tenancy rights, and partition of agricultural land. The suit as framed asks for a declaration that the will and mutation are void and for partition of 6 bighas of khatedari land. That is not a mere incidental question; it is the core of the dispute. The civil court therefore lacks jurisdiction, and the plaint should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the proper revenue court. The validity of the unregistered will can be decided by the revenue court as an incidental issue. The position would be different if Mohan were suing a stranger who had no tenancy claim and sought possession on title, but Bharat is a co-sharer in the same khatedari. The civil court cannot bypass Section 207 by calling the mutation a nullity.

A mutation entry is a fiscal record intended for revenue collection; it does not confer title and does not extinguish title. The unregistered will is not inadmissible merely because it is unregistered, since registration of a will is optional, but it must be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examining an attesting witness if available. The Tehsildar's mutation based on that will is not conclusive. His rejection of Mohan's correction application on the ground of delay is also not a final adjudication of title. The proper remedy is a revenue suit for declaration and partition, and appeals/revisions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Delay is a factor, but a void entry or a fraudulent mutation may be corrected; the revenue court should decide whether the delay is fatal after considering Mohan's knowledge and the nature of the entry.

The civil suit is not maintainable, so the question of limitation is for the revenue court. In a revenue suit for declaration, the period is generally three years from the accrual of the right to sue; for partition, the courts take the view that the right to seek partition is a continuing right and is not lost by mere delay, though the declaration that the will is void may be time-barred. Mohan says he knew only in 2023, when he returned from army service; the revenue court will decide whether he had constructive notice of the 2012 mutation. He should also pursue the correction application and the statutory appeal/revision rather than a civil suit. If the revenue court finds the suit within time, it can decide the will and the partition; if not, the mutation will stand as a fiscal entry, though it will still not be conclusive of title.