Shrusti Shah Shares Insights on Supreme Court Ruling on Property Rights and Mutation Entries

Shrusti Shah was quoted by ET Wealth Online in its report on a Supreme Court judgment concerning a dispute over ancestral property and the effect of mutation entries in revenue records.

Commenting on the judgment, Shah highlighted the limits of the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). She noted that the Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact in the absence of any demonstrable perversity or error of law warranting such interference.

Shah further identified the Supreme Court’s observations on mutation entries and title to property as particularly significant for property litigation. She explained that a mutation entry in revenue records is intended for fiscal and administrative purposes and does not, by itself, create or extinguish ownership rights.

Shah said: “The Supreme Court restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, both of which had held that Jamnabai’s late husband Ramprasad remained a co-owner of the suit property along with his brother Vasudev, and that this co-ownership had never been lawfully extinguished.”

Shah’s comments were featured in ET Wealth Online’s article, “Uncle opposed claim to grandfather’s 12-acre land after father’s name was removed; Supreme Court gives relief to children.”

Read the full coverage in ET Wealth Online: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/legal/will/uncle-opposed-claim-to-grandfathers-12-acre-land-after-fathers-name-was-removed-supreme-court-gives-relief-to-children/articleshow/134055676.cms

Last Updated on 22 September, 2026