JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession stating that the suit land was purchased by his grand father Des Raj while father of the defendants was cultivating a part of the suit land under the plaintiff but subsequently, the defendants were entered as owners to the extent of l/4th share and they filed an application for partition on the basis of mutation No. 1675 dated 28.2.1948 which was sanctioned without knowledge of the plaintiff. The suit was contested with the averment that ancestors of the defendants had l/4th share in the suit which was admitted by the plaintiff and his mother in the presence of Giani, Lambardar which led to mutation dated 28.2.1948 and the defendants have continued in possession.
2. The trial court dismissed the suit Under Issue Nos. l and 2, it was held that mutation No. 1674 dated 28.2.1948 was binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon jamabandi for the year 1940-41 Ex. P-10 as well as Jamabandi for the year 1928-29 showing Ram Sarup, father of the plaintiff to be the owner but Hargobind was shown to be in possession as “BINA LAGAN BAVAJAH AAPAS DARI”. There was entry dated 5.7.1947 to the effect that plaintiff and his brother made a statement in presence of Lambardar that names of Chandgi and Bhagwana sons of Shiv Ram, be entered as owners of l/4th share for which they were already in possession and on that basis,, mutation dated 28.2.1948 was sanctioned. Thereafter, in the jamabandi for the year 1956 Ex. PS, names of defendants as owners were also recorded. The trial Court further observed that presence of plaintiff was shown at the time of recording mutation of inheritance of Jugti dated 5.1.1957 Ex. C-1 when plaintiff was entered as owner of 3/4th share.
3. The lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court and upheld dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that merely because mutation entry was made in the year 1948, no title was conferred in favour of the defendants and the said entry could be shown to be erroneous and declaration to that effect could be sought. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in Balwant Singh and Anr v. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs and Ors., J. T. 1997(5) S.C. 703.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that plaintiffs were estopped from making any claim when their predecessors in the year 1948 had acknowledged the title of the defendants. It was submitted that the decision in Balwant Singh’s case (supra) did not support the case of the appellant as in para 28, it was held that entry in mutation should be taken as correct unless contrary was established and since mutation entry of the year 1948 based on admission of the plaintiff acknowledging title of the defendants to the extent of l/4th was preceded by statement on behalf of the plaintiff, in the presence of a Lambardar and subsequently, presence of the plaintiff at the time of mutation on 5.1.1957 was also shown, plaintiff was estopped from questioning title of the defendants by filing a suit in the year 1977. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied judgments in Nizam Din and Ors v. Godar and Ors., A.I.R. 1934 Privy Council 40, Smt. Kako Bai v. The Land Acquisition. Collector, Hissar and Ors., A.I.R. 1956 Punjab 231, Smt Sewti Devi v. Kanti Parshad and Ors., A.I.R. 1973 P&H 126, Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Sain, A.I.R. 1929 Lahore 93 and Ram Sarup v. Ram Saran and Anr, A.I.R. 1926 Lahore 650 to submit that there was a statutory presumption in favour of correctness of a mutation Under Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and that a person admitting claim of a defendant at the time of mutation would be estopped from withdrawing such an admission after lapse of several years.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The lower appellate court in para 12 of its judgment observed as Under:-
“The mutation Ex. P-18 was sanctioned on the basis of the report Ex. D-2 dated 5.7.1947. It is a very old transaction and has to be appreciated in the light of the close relationship between the parties. There is. no dispute of the legal proposition that a mutation does not create title and that if a mutation is wrongly sanctioned either on an erroneous admission of the legal rights or on misconception of facts, it would not adversely effect the right of the party against whom it is sanctioned. But in this case, the report Ex. D-2 was made to patwari by the plaintiff himself in company with his mother Dhan Kaur, acting as the natural guardian of his brother Jugti who was a minor at that time for getting incorporated the names of the defendant’s predecessor-in-interests, namely Chandgi and Bhagwana as owners to the extent of l/4th share in the suit land. This representation was completely in line with the existing arrangement in their family under which the said Chandgi and Bhagwana (defendant’s predecessors-in-interest) were cultivating the land as full fledged owners.”
7. The view taken by the lower appellate court is not shown to be erroneous in any manner. Once between close relatives, an arrangement has been allowed to continue by a conscious decision, the same could not be allowed to be questioned after 30 years.
Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.