AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Earlier an interim order was passed on an application filed by the appellant being CAN No. 12414 of 2014 by the other Division Bench of this Court on 29th January, 2015 whereby the parties were directed to maintain status qua as on that day in relation to the property in suit during the pendency of this appeal.
Subsequently on an application filed by the appellant a pendente lite transferee was added as a party in this appeal. The said pendente lite transferee, however, claimed to have acquired some interest in the suit property by virtue of deed of gift executed by her grandmother viz the defendant no.2.
It is alleged by the appellant in the present application that the said pendente lite transferee has already got her name mutated in the revenue records of the State in respect of the shares she acquired in the property by virtue of deed of gift executed by the defendant no.2 and the said transferee is now trying to transfer her share in the suit property to a stranger purchaser.
Having regard to the fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the legality of such mutation, we refrain ourselves from considering the legality of such mutation of the name of the pendente lite transfer in the revenue records by the State. It is, however, made it clear that since mutation does not create any title in favour of any person who has otherwise no title over the property or alternatively since mutation does not extinguish the title of a person who has otherwise title in it, the mutation which has already been made by the Revenue Authority in favour of the pendente lite transferee, namely the respondent no.6 herein will ultimately abide by the result of the partition suit.
The respondent no.6 being the subsequent transferee is refrained from transferring her share of the suit property without the leave of the Court. The application is thus disposed of.