co-owner is presumed to be in possession of every inch of the joint property unless it is partitioned.

Section 18 of the Limitation Act addresses this issue. It states that if a person entitled to institute a suit or submit an application has, by means of fraud, been kept from the knowledge of such right or the title on which it is founded, or if any document necessary to establish such right has been fraudulently concealed from them, the time limit for filing a suit or application (a) against the person guilty of the fraud or accessory thereto, or (b) against any person claiming through them otherwise than in good faith and for valuable consideration, shall be computed from the time when the fraud first became known to the person injuriously affected thereby. In the case of the concealed document, the computation starts when the person first gains the means to present it or enforce its production.

Mutation does not confer any title. It primarily serves the purpose of updating records for fiscal purposes. Despite its limited role, mutation plays a crucial role in preventing fraud by protecting the owner’s proprietary rights and securing the rights of the vendee/transferee once attested. Section 42(7) of the 1967 Act imposes mandatory requirements for the attestation of mutations. The failure of the revenue staff to comply with the provisions of section 42 does not invalidate the transactions covered by mutations. If a dispute arises, the parties involved must substantiate transactions according to the law of evidence.

When a mutation is challenged, the party relying on it must prove the original transaction and establish its legitimacy.

Roznamcha Waqiati does not form a part of the record of rights.