ORDER : 1. Plaintiff one Guddi instituted, a, civil suit bearing No. 170/95, before the learned trial Judge, seeking therein, hence rendition, of, a declaratory relief, qua of hers, being joint owner in possession, to, the extent of l/5th share, alongwith the defendants, vis-a-vis, suit khasra Nos. and ‘; b also strived, for rendition, of, a declaratory relief, for setting aside mutation No. 458, recorded, on, 23.11.1962, on anvil, qua it being recorded, behind her back, and also against the provisions of law. The afore civil suit, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Judge, and, there against civil appeal bearing No. 97 of 2001, stood instituted, before the learned First appellate Court, and the afore civil appeal, also stood dismissed, and, the trial Court's verdict, hence dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, rather stood affirmed, by the learned First appellate Court. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the declining of the afore relief, and, through RSA No. 95 of 2006, cast a challenge thereon. 2. When the instant appeal came up, for admission, before this Court, on 15.6.2009, this Court admitted the instant RSA on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question(s) of law:- (i) Whether the vested rights of an original owner over land in question cannot be transferred through the alleged plea of relinquishment of Transfer of Properties Act and Indian Registration Act? (ii) Whether the respondents by raising plea of adverse possession over suit lands admitted the title and ownership of the plaintiff, there before the title and ownership of the plaintiff, therefore this plea having been decided against them as such, appellants are entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership and joint possession over the suit land? Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. 3. The plaintiff Guddi, through her LRs, sought rendition, of, a decree for setting aside, mutation No.458, attested, on 23.11.1962, and made vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Nos. and, qua the defendants (i) and, where through, she purportedly relinquished, her share in the suit property, yet, the afore relief, rather stood declined to her, on anvil, qua hers failing to appear, as a witness, (ii) and also upon anvil qua her challenge, to, the afore mutation, being made belatedly, and hence, the, casting, of, an onslaught thereon, being time barred. However, both the afore meted reasons, rather by the learned first appellate Court, to, there through(s) hence decline, the, espoused relief, vis-a-vis the plaintiff, appertaining, for setting aside mutation No. 458 attested, on 23.11.1962, is perse erroneous, and, is founded, upon, an erroneous interpretation of law, (iii) inasmuch, as any drawing, of, an adverse inference, against the plaintiff, rather sparked, by hers failing to step into the witness box, being insufficient, to, decline the espoused relief, to, her, as all the averments, borne in the plaint, were proven through the testification, of her son, who, appeared as PW-1, and who was evidently well-acquainted, with, the facts, as, appertaining, to, the lis, (iv) there along with furthermore, the afore secondary reason(s), as assigned by the learned first appellate Court, for declining the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, is, also perse flimsy and fallacious, (v) given, the, afore recorded mutation, being, for reasons assigned hereafter, rather becoming founded hence beyond the domain, of, law, as, appertaining therewith, and, also concomitantly, it being void ab-initio, (vi) thereupon(s), vis-a-vis, any ab-initiovoid- order of mutation, there being no prescribed period, of, limitation, rather the afore ab-initio void order of mutation, conferring a continuing cause of action, vis-avis, the aggrieved therefrom, with the further corollary, qua the apt commencing reckoneable period of limitation, becoming actionable, from, the commission of overt act(s), upon, the suit property, and, also the apt cause of action, becoming activated, upon, the rights of the plaintiff, in the suit property, being adversely affected (vii) and when, from, the afore reckonable commencing period of limitation, the suit is filed, within the apt prescribed period, of, limitation, and, also with the plaintiff also claiming the rendition, of, a decree of joint possession, (viii) thereupon, the plaintiffs' suit, was rather well constituted, and, was also within limitation, and, the declining to the plaintiff, the, relief of setting aside, the, mutation No. 458, is, un-merit worthy, and, warrants interference. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting parties, do not wrangle over the factum qua, in contemporaniety, visa-vis, the recording, of, mutation, inasmuch, as, on23.11.1962, there being no imperative necessity, for, prior to its recording, hence the apposite registered relinquishment deed, becoming entered into or executed interse, the, relinquiser and, the relinquishee. However, the fulcrum, of, the contest engaging the contesting litigants, is, focused, upon, (i) the mutation attested, on 23.11.1962, and, embodied in Ext. However, the fulcrum, of, the contest engaging the contesting litigants, is, focused, upon, (i) the mutation attested, on 23.11.1962, and, embodied in Ext. P-C, acquiring an aura of validity, or it not acquiring an aura of validity, (ii) and the afore rival contentions, rather are required to be rested, only upon making the deepest, and, a circumspect perusal of Ext. P-C, and hence the latter unfolding qua it, being made, in, the statutorily ordained manner. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, appearing for the contesting litigants, do not, wrangle over the factum, qua in contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the contentious mutation, borne in Ext. P-C, becoming attested, rather thereat, the mandate borne in Section 37, of, the then applicable Punjab Revenue Act, obviously hence holding the apt sway, and, clout, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "37. Entries in records-of-rights or in annual records, except entries made in annual records by Patwaris under clause (a) of Section 35 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by: (a) Making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred; (b) Making such entries as are agreed to by al the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; (c) Making new maps where it is necessary to make them." 6. Even though, the learned counsel, for the defendants, who are beneficiaries of the mutation, borne in Ext. P-C, makes an espousal, that, with the order of mutation, hence reflecting qua Guddi recording her presence, before the attesting Officer, thereupon within the ambit, of, clause (a), of, Section 37, of, the Punjab Revenue Act, (i) the apposite mutation, becoming an admitted fact, by her, hence the afore recorded mutation, not requiring any interference, (ii) and also he contends, that, her admitted presence, before the Officer concerned, who recorded it, also disabling her to contend that she, since then, upto, the filing of the instant suit, holding no knowledge, qua its making, (iii) rather he contends, that with the recorded presence, of, the plaintfif in Ext. P-C, she is further estopped to, beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence commencing, from, the period of making of Ext. P-C, she is further estopped to, beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence commencing, from, the period of making of Ext. PC, hence constitute a suit, for declaration, for setting aside, the, mutation, borne in Ext.P-C. However, the afore submission, is, though attractable, yet much of its sheen is faded, (iv) as the mandate borne in clause (a) of Section 37, of, the Punjab Land Revenue Act, as banked, upon, by the counsel for the defendant, is, not the solitary provision, to, make any gaugings, vis-a-vis, the presence of Guddi, as reflected, in Ext. P-C, being fictitiously recorded or not, (iv) rather for making a conclusion qua the afore being a fictitious reflection(s) or not, rather, enjoins an allusion, being also made to clause 7.1, occurring in Chapter 7, of, the Punjab Land Records manual, as are applicable, in contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the making of Ext.P-C, the apt portion whereof is extracted hereinafter: "7.1 The mutation register is prescribed in sections 33(3) and 34 of the Land Revenue Act for the entry of every acquisition of any right or interest in an estate as a landowner or assignee, and under Section 35 for disputed acquisition of other rights. The mutation register is not a part of the record of rights and its entries do not share in the presumption of truth attached to that record. All mutations of rights of ownership including voluntary partitions, shall be entered by the patwari in the register when they are reported to him by the transferee as required by section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, and if not so reported, then as soon as they appear to have been acted upon. When he enters a mutation affecting the shajra nasb the patwari shall note in pencil the number of the mutation against the entry affected. If and when the mutation is sanctioned he shall amend the shapra nasb in red ink in accordance with the mutation order. 7.2 The patwari should, whenever a mutation ase is entered in the register, note the serial number and nature of the transfer in pencil in the column of remarks of the jamabandi opposite the appropriate holding. If and when the mutation is sanctioned, he should make the above note in red ink. 7.2 The patwari should, whenever a mutation ase is entered in the register, note the serial number and nature of the transfer in pencil in the column of remarks of the jamabandi opposite the appropriate holding. If and when the mutation is sanctioned, he should make the above note in red ink. Serial number of fard badar entries should also be similarly noted and in order to distinguish them from the serial number of mutations the word "badar" should be added. Fard badar entries will thus be referred to as 1 badar, 2 badar, etc. etc." 7. A perusal of the hereinafter extracted relevant clause, has a solemn solutory purpose, of, ensuring obviations, qua the making of fictitious entries, in, the relevant records, and, the afore obviation, is, pre-empted, through, strict adherence being meted, vis-a-vis, the ordainments or edicts, occurring therein, comprised in (a) the mutation register being enjoined, to be prepared, in, counterfoil, and, in foil by the patwaris, and, the foil, after the making of orders, by the attesting officer, being removed, and it being sent to the Tehsil, for it being tagged alongwith, the Jamabandi. However, the Patwari concerned, is also, enjoined, to, in the counterfoil, hence comprising, his records rather make therein detailed report(s), hence explaining, the change to be made, in, the revenue records, (b) the names of the person, on whose information, the entry is based, and is also enjoined, to elicit the presence, of, the Numberdar, of, the area concerned, for, the latter attesting the entry, by seal or signature, and, thereafter, an injunction is cast, upon, the Field Kanungo, to, attest, through personal verification or examination hence all the afores, and, the apposite attesting(s) the signatures, of, the Kanungo are enjoined, to, be made, by him, both, upon, the foil, and, the counterfoil. 8. Bearing in mind, the afore ordained mechanism, as encapsulated, in the Punjab Land Records Manual, (a) and, upon theirs' being applied here at and, when, as aforestated, the presence before the Revenue Officer concerned, of, the plaintiff, is peremptory, for, hence thereafter, this Court accepting, the submissions, made before this Court, by the counsel for the defendants, (i) whereas upon making a circumspect, and, keen perusal of Ext. P-C, unfoldments emerge vis-a-vis, the afore apt ordained mechanism, becoming star kingly transgressed, as, comprised in the identification, of, Guddi being made, by, the member of the Panchayat concerned, (ii) whereas the ordained mechanism, appertaining therewith, rather enjoining the Numberdar of the area concerned, to, make the identification, under, his signatures, of, Guddi. Besides, apparently, when in none of the columns, of, Ext. P-C, there occurs any recital(s), hence, conforming vis-avis, the afore edicts and nor the Patwari making any recital, therein hence conforming, to the edicts cast upon him, besides also, the Field Kanungo, in the relevant column of Ext. P-C, omitting to, under his signatures, hence attest, the, recitals, enjoined to be initially, made by the Halqua Patwari concerned, (iii) cumulatively hence, with the apt peremptory ordained mechanism, as, is applicable here at, becoming blatantly transgressed, and, when the afore ordained mechanism rather is supplemental, vis-a-vis, the mandate, borne in Section 37 clause (a), of, the Punjab Land Records Manual, (iv) and, is also, imbued with a holistic purpose, of, obviating, the, making of fictitious entries, whereas, it, for the reasons assigned hereinabove, rather remaining un-adhered to, (v) thereupon it is to be concluded, qua it being fictitiously drawn, and, also it is to be inferred, that, the presence of Guddi Devi also being fictitiously recorded. Consequently, Guddi, did not acquire any knowledge, in contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the making(s) thereof, rather she acquired knowledge, vis-a-vis, the making, of, a void ab-initio Ext. PC, only upon, the, averred and proven actionable, causes of, action, being committed, upon, the suit property, thereupon the period of limitation, commences, from the date, of, proven commission, of, overt acts upon the suit property, and when therefrom, the suit, has been filed, within, the period of limitation, hence it is well constituted, peremptorily also when she has sought the further decree for joint possession. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Be that as it may, since evidently, the plaintiff Guddi is the legal heir of deceased Ram Saran, and hence she is entitled to inherit his estate, thereupon mutation No. 458, attested on 23.11.1962 where through she relinquished her share in the suit property, vis-a-vis, the defendant, is quashed and set aside. The substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the instant appeal has merit and the same is allowed. The substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the instant appeal has merit and the same is allowed. Mutation No. 458, attested on 23.11.1962 is quashed and set aside. The impugned judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned first appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2001, is, quashed and set aside. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.