Bombay High Court
Gangubai Digambar Kotmad & ... vs Nagnath Mahajan Kotmad & Others on 11 December, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 233wp3321o96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3321 OF 1996
1 Gangubai Digambar Kotmad,
Age Major, Occupation Agri,
R/o Kuntoor, Taluka Biloli,
District Nanded.
2 Janabai Rama Kotmad,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Agri,
R/o as above.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1 Nagnath Mahajan Kotmad,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Agri,
R/o Kuntoor, Taluka Biloli,
District Nanded.
2 Mahajan Khirappa,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Agri,
R/o as above.
3 The State of Maharashtra.
(formal party).
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri G.N.Chincholkar.
Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri P.P.Mandlik.
AGP for Respondent 3/ State : Shri S.K.Tambe.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 11th December, 2017
*2* 233wp3321o96
Oral Judgment :
1 During the pendency of this petition, it is informed that,
Petitioner No.1 (Gangubai Digambar Kotmad) has compromised with
Respondent No.2 (Mahajan Khirappa Kotmad). Consequentially, the land
Gat No.407 has been handed over by Petitioner No.1 (Gangubai) to
Respondent No.2 (Mahajan Khirappa Kotmad) and the dispute between
these two parties is now settled. Petitioner No.1, therefore, is not
prosecuting this petition.
2 By the compromise purshis filed in this Court dated
09.07.1998 in between Petitioner No.1 (Gangubai) and Respondent No.2
(Mahajan Khirappa), Gangubai has handed over 0.81 R in Gat No.407 to
Respondent No.2 (Mahajan Khirappa), who in turn, has handed over 0.30
R in Gat No.406 to Petitioner No.1 (Gangubai). It is mentioned that
Respondent No.2 has given the land to the extent of 0.92 R from Gat
No.870 and Petitioner No.1 is the owner and possessor of the above lands.
Mutation Entry No.754 would, therefore, be binding upon Petitioner No.1
Gangubai and Respondent No.2 (Mahajan Khirappa).
3 Shri Chincholikar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
submits that the dispute survives between Petitioner No.2 (Janabai) and
Respondent No.1 (Nagnath Mahajan Kotmad) with regard to the land Gat
No.327.
*3* 233wp3321o96
4 The Additional Divisional Commissioner, by his judgment
dated 02.12.1995, delivered under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 in Case No.1994/Rev/R-245, which is a revision
petition preferred by the two Respondents herein, has concluded that
there were three registered sale deeds in between 1966 to 1979. There
was no contention by the litigating sides that the lands included in the
three registered sale deeds were purchased out of the joint family property
funds or that they were shown out of the common hotchpotch of the joint/
undivided family.
5 Shri Chincholkar submits that Respondent No.1 was about 3
to 4 years old when the sale deeds were registered. The record reveals
that while Mutation Entry No.754 was mutated on 12.08.1992 with
regard to both lands Gat Nos.327 and 407, it was so done on the basis of
the registered sale deeds. Shri Chincholkar submits that Petitioner No.2
(Janabai) is now not only praying for setting aside the Mutation Entry, but
she is also agitating for her right and title over the land Gat No.327.
6 This Court has concluded, in the matter of Shrikant R.
Sankanwar and others vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (3) BCR 45, that
the mutation entries are meant only for fiscal purposes and they do not
decide the right, title or interest of any person over the land. While
carrying out the mutation entry, the best evidence available is to be
scrutinized.
*4* 233wp3321o96
7 In the instant case, Respondent No.1 (Nagnath) had
purchased the land Gat No.327 from Hanumant Ramchandra Ritewad in
1977. Respondent No.2 (Mahajan Khirappa) had purchased the land Gat
No.407 from Venkat Nagoba Adkine. This was done on the basis of the
registered sale deeds. Petitioner No.2/Janabai now contends that the said
property was purchased from the joint family property earnings and she,
therefore, has a share in the said property since it being purchased out of
the earnings of the ancestral property.
8 In my view, keeping the law laid down in Shrikant Sankanwar
(supra) in focus, the right, title and interest in respect of the immovable
property cannot be decided at the hands of the Revenue authorities and
surely not on the basis of the Mutation Entry. If Petitioner No.2/Janabai
has any interest in the said land and desires to lay her claim to the portion
of the property on the basis of her contention that it is ancestral property
or purchased out of the earnings of the ancestral property, she would have
to file a suit for seeking partition, separate possession and declaration.
9 Considering the above, though Mutation Entry No.754 taken
on 12.08.1992 may not be faulted insofar as the fiscal purposes are
concerned, I find that Petitioner No.2/ Janabai is now left with no option,
but to prefer appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Civil Court
for seeking a declaration of her title over the property bearing Gat No.327.
10 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with
*5* 233wp3321o96
liberty to Petitioner No.2/ Janabai to initiate appropriate proceedings
before the appropriate competent civil court for the redressal of her
grievance.
11 Needless to state, considering the law laid down by this Court
in Shrikant Sankanwar (supra), all mutation entries shall be subject to the
result of the adjudication in the civil suit.
12 Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
