ORDER R.C. Roy Poddar, President This is an application for revision against the order of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, dated 14-9-64 in Appeal No. 85-A/6 of 1963-64 under which he had set aside the orders of the lower Courts rejecting the non-applicant's application for mutation of his name in place of the deceased Bhumiswami Mst. Sonibai in respect of the land in question in which he claimed to have acquired a right on the basis of a gift deed executed in his favour by Mst. Sonibai. The lower Courts had ordered that the lands in question shall continue to be recorded in the name of the applicant Kasturchand alone as already ordered by the Revenue Inspector. The facts about which there is no dispute are that the applicant Kasturchand is the adopted son of Mst. Sonibai and was looking after the lands in question in her behalf during her life-time. It also appears that on the death of Mst. Sonibai, the name of the applicant Kasturchand had been entered in the mutation register as her successor-in-interest and the entry had been duly certified by the Revenue Inspector. After that the non-applicant had filed an application claiming mutation of his name in respect of 55.65 acres of land, out of the 80 acres or so held by Mst. Sonibai, which was allegedly transferred to him by her before her death by means of a registered gift deed. On going through the records of the ease I am inclined to think that the decision of the Commissioner is not strictly in accordance with the provision of the rules framed u/s 258 read with Sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. According to Rule 21 of these rules, disputes regarding mutation shall be decided summarily on the basis of possession, that is to say, the person who actually holds possession under a claim of title shall be recorded as a Bhumiswami. The non-applicant did not claim to be in possession of the land. His claim is based simply on the title that he has allegedly acquired under a gift deed. His title may be the strongest as he claimed, but this can be taken to be the deciding factor only if there is doubt as to the actual possession. The non-applicant did not claim to be in possession of the land. His claim is based simply on the title that he has allegedly acquired under a gift deed. His title may be the strongest as he claimed, but this can be taken to be the deciding factor only if there is doubt as to the actual possession. In this case there is no such doubt, as he himself does not claim to be in possession, while the other party does claim to be in possession and his possession is also under a claim of title as being the son of the deceased. In such a case the summary decision of the Revenue Court has necessarily to be in favour of the latter. Then again, even where there is a dispute about the possession and the decision has to be made in favour of the person with the strongest title, the Revenue Court has to decide the question of title also summarily and cannot go into the intricate questions of the civil law for the determination of the relative strength of the titles of the contestants, which must of necessity be left to be decided by a civil Court. That is to say the question of the strongest title also has to be determined summarily, and in such a summary decision the natural heir of the deceased will obviously be considered to have the strongest title rather than the person who claims a title by transfer which is disputed. Thus either way it seems to me that the summary decision of a Revenue Court in a case like this must of necessity go in favour of the natural heir who is also in possession rather than in favour of a person who claims a title by transfer and does not claim to be in possession either. The Learned Counsel for the non-applicant urged that although the applicant was in possession of the land, the nature of his possession was such that he could not claim mutation under Rule 21 of the rules on the strength of such possession. He argued that all the evidence on record tended to show that the applicant was managing the lands of the deceased Mst. Sonibai in her behalf during her life-time, and so his possession was only in managerial capacity and not under a claim of title. He argued that all the evidence on record tended to show that the applicant was managing the lands of the deceased Mst. Sonibai in her behalf during her life-time, and so his possession was only in managerial capacity and not under a claim of title. I could not really see any point in this argument. As long as Mst. Sonibai was living, the applicant as her son would naturally manage the lands recorded in her name, but her rights in the land along with possession will obviously devolve on her son immediately on her death thereby giving him a right to claim mutation on the basis of possession under a claim of title The non-applicant is free to contest his rival's claim of title, but he cannot contest his possession since he himself does not claim to be in possession and it is not his case either that the applicant was a trespasser. If and when the non-applicant succeeds in establishing his alleged title by transfer, he will no doubt be in a position to claim restoration of possession also from the applicant, but until that has happened it has to be accepted that the applicant's possession is under a claim of title. As I have said, a revenue Court is not the proper forum from which the non-applicant can get a decision on his claim of title. In view of the above the revision is allowed and the order of the Commissioner is set aside. The order of the original Court as upheld by the first appellate Court shall stand. Final Result : Allowed