Bombay High Court
Shri. Madhav Dadaji Gedam And Other vs Shri. Ramesh Shiva Gedam And Others on 30 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7482
1 cra114.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.114/2024
1. Shri. Madhav Dadaji Gedam
Aged about 32 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Chincholi, Post-Batali,
Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur.
2. Shri Pramod Dadaji Gedam,
Aged about 34 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Chincholi, Post-Batali,
Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur. ... Applicants
- Versus -
1. Shri. Ramesh Shiva Gedam,
Age about 40 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Kitali, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
2. Smt. Sunita Shama Gedam
Age about 42 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Agarzari, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
3. Smt. Kalpana Devrao Gedam
Age about 45 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Kitali, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
4. Smt. Shantabai Devrao Kumre
Age about 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Mohurli, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
5. Smt. Lilabai Nanda Madavi
Age about 61 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Kitali, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
2 cra114.2024
6. General Manager,
Western Coal Field Ltd.,
R/o Rayatwari Coloney Area,
Chandrapur, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
7. Sub Area Manager,
Western Coal Field Ltd.,
R/o Bhatali, Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur. ... Non-applicants
-----------------
Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. R.L. Alone, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. A.D. Babhane, Advocate h/f Mr. Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for
non-applicant Nos.6 and 7.
----------------
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 10.07.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 29.07.2025.
JUDGMENT
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The applicants preferred the instant revision
application being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
04.04.2024 passed below Exh.12 and impugned order dated
08.10.2024 passed below Exh.26 by the Learned Civil Judge
Junior Division, Chandrapur whereby the learned trial Court
rejected both the applications craving for rejection of plaint in
3 cra114.2024
Regular Civil Suit No.191/2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under:-
The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Shiva
Gedam and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased
Dadaji Gedam. Both were real brothers. The suit property was
purchased on 05.11.1974 by Dadaji Gedam from Shiva Gedam
having mutation entry in the revenue records dated 13.02.1976.
The regular civil suit was filed in the year 2022 for seeking
declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction against the
defendants.
4. Ground on which the suit has been dismissed is as
under:-
The cause of action arose in the year 1974, however,
since the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged transaction,
therefore, they are seeking relief of declaration and partition in the
year 2022.
4 cra114.2024
5. Learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Chandekar,
submitted that the alleged suit property is acquired by Western
Coalfields Limited i.e. Ministry of Coal India, therefore, all rights
over such land are vested with the Central Government under
Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 vide Gazette Notification dated
17.03.2023. He further submitted that as per Section 26 of the
said Act, civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of any matter
which the Central Government or the competent authority or any
other person is empowered to by or under this Act to determine.
6. Learned Advocate averred that the suit filed by the
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs
cannot seek permanent injunction without seeking declaration of
ownership. Mr. Chandekar further contended that the civil Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the alleged
mutation entry as per Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Revenue
Code. He has prayed to allow the instant application.
5 cra114.2024
7. In support of argument that the suit is barred by
limitation the applicants have relied on the following judgments:-
i) Shanti Devi and others V/s. Md. Abdul and others
decided by Jharkhand High Court on 28.11.2022 in Second
Appeal No.201/2005.
ii) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others V/s Shrimant
Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and
another reported in 2024 DGLS (SC) 1322.
8. Learned Advocate for the non-applicants argued that
Shiva Kuda Gedam died on 17.10.2021 and Dadaji Kuda Gedam
died on 13.01.1998. It is totally false and denied that during his
lifetime Dadaji Kuda Gedam purchased suit property from Shiva
Kuda Gedam on 05.11.1974. The learned Advocate further
claimed that the cause of action arose when plaintiffs became
aware of the transaction that deceased Dadaji Kuda Gedam
illegally mutated his name in the property of Shiwa Kuda Gedam.
The suit is within limitation. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs
6 cra114.2024
are claiming relief against defendant Nos.3 and 4, therefore, this
Hon'ble Court has every jurisdiction to decide the said matter as
per the pleadings of the plaintiffs. He has prayed to reject the
present application.
9. Heard both Advocates and perused the record.
10. The plaintiffs are claiming that the mutation entry in
revenue record on the basis of sale deed dated 05.11.1974 which is
taken on record on 13.2.1976, is not correct and, therefore,
declaration is sought to declare that the said mutation entry is
illegal, it is ancestral property and the plaintiffs have 1/5th share
in said property. The prayer No.3 is for not to hand over any
compensation to the defendants.
11. On perusal of the plaint it appears that the plaintiffs
are claiming right on the basis of mutation entry and for
correction of the same they have prayed for declaration that said
mutation entry is not correct. The mutation entry is taken on the
basis of sale deed which is executed in the year 1974. The
plaintiffs have not taken any action since then and moreover for
7 cra114.2024
correction of mutation entry as per Section 155 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the Revenue Officer is the
authority. As per Section 247 appeal is provided under the Code
and civil Court has no jurisdiction to correct the entry in revenue
record. The correction of entry is on the basis of the sale deed
which is dated 05.11.1974. Therefore, it is also barred by
limitation. Though the land is acquired by Western Coalfields
Limited the role of W.C.L. is limited about the apportionment of
the compensation amount. Therefore, there is no question of
considering the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction as
the property is in possession of W.C.L.
12. The entry in revenue record is challenged there is
specific provision under Section 247 of the M.L.R. Code, it would
not be corrected before the civil Court. Hence the civil Court has
no jurisdiction.
13. It is also barred by limitation as it is not sought within
three years from the date of execution of the sale deed. It is settled
law that when an application to reject the plaint is filed, the
8 cra114.2024
averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith
alone are germane. The averments in the application can be taken
into account only to consider whether the case falls within any of
the sub-rules of Order VII Rule 11 by considering the averments
in the plaint. The Court cannot look into the written statement
or the documents filed by the defendants. The Civil Courts
including this Court cannot go into the rival contentions at that
stage. The plaintiffs have claimed title, right and interest over the
properties as ancestral property. They have denied the sale deed
executed by Shiva and revenue entry on record on the basis of
said sale deed. The cause of action cannot be considered from the
date of knowledge of the said entry. It is barred by limitation. The
trial Court has not considered said ground while deciding the
applications. Hence it requires interference at the hands of this
Court in the orders passed by the trial Court. The impugned
orders passed by the trial Court are set aside. Accordingly, the
application is allowed. No costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2025 18:53:33
