ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. No.279 of 2012 whereby the High Court has concurred with the view recorded by the West Bengal Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.1783 of 2009 whereby it has upheld the order passed by the appellate authority who has affirmed the recording of the mutation entry in favour of the 5th respondent herein. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court has not taken into consideration the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hooghly in Title Suit No.40 of 2005. He has drawn our attention to the judgment whereby the trial Judge has opined that the deed of gift executed in favour of the respondent No.5 in the year 2004 is not binding upon the plaintiffs. It has also been directed therein that the defendants shall not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff as long as the possession is not terminated lawfully. 4. We have been apprised by Mr. Soumitra Ghosh Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the State that the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit is under assail in an appeal. At this juncture, we have also been told that the appellants who have entered into an agreement for sale have instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract in the year 2005. 5. In these circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court is justified in upholding the entry in the mutation records. 6. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion the cause of justice would be best sub-served if the mutation entry is maintained subject to the final decision in the suit which has been instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. If eventually the suit is decreed, the appellants can claim for mutation of the suit land in their favour. Needless to say, their right to remain in possession has been protected by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.40 of 2005. If eventually the suit is decreed, the appellants can claim for mutation of the suit land in their favour. Needless to say, their right to remain in possession has been protected by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.40 of 2005. In case, the verdict in the Title Suit is reversed in the appeal which is stated to have been filed, it will affect only the possessory rights of the appellants. The possession shall be governed by the result of the suit filed by the plaintiff's. 7. With the aforesaid modifications and observations in the order passed by the High Court, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.