Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Mangesh S. Patil, J.
Fermi Solarfarms Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Nabibai Harsing Rathod and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8910 of 2019
Decided On : 14-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.P. Brahme
For the Respondents: P.S. Paranjape and G.R. Syed
The revenue record carries presumptive value, and the conduct of parties in property disputes can raise doubts about their bona fides.
Headnote:
Revenue Record - Property Dispute - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - [Article 227] - [Constitution of India]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the Civil Judge and the Ad hoc District Judge, which granted temporary injunctions to the respondents, restraining the petitioner from obstructing their possession of a portion of land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the revenue record showing the name of Narsing as the owner carried presumptive value, and the petitioner's conduct in obtaining sale-deeds to the detriment of other heirs raised doubts about its bona fides.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and partition of the land, the validity of the sale-deeds, and the grant of temporary injunctions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revenue record carried presumptive value, and the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining sale-deeds to the detriment of other heirs raised doubts about its bona fides. The Court also emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 227.
Final Decision: Writ Petition No. 8910/2019 was dismissed, while Writ Petition No. 8931/2019 was allowed, quashing the impugned orders and rejecting the application for temporary injunction.
ORDER :
Mangesh S. Patil, J.
1. Heard both the sides. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By way of these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the original defendant No. 28 in Special Civil Suit No. 150/2017 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Jalgaon is impugning the concurrent findings of the learned Civil Judge and of the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1 whereby the applications for temporary injunction filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who are the original plaintiffs and application (Exhibit 58) filed by the respondents No. 8 and 9 who are the original defendant Nos. 19 and 22 have been allowed and the petitioner is temporarily restrained from obstructing possession of the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in the suit property which is described in the plaint as a middle 2-Hectares 56-Are portion from the land Gat No. 54 totally admeasuring 7-Hectares 69-Are of village Bodhare (Mothe) Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, and that of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in their joint possession over entire Gat No. 54.
3. In nutshell the averments in the plaint are to the effect that one Vishram Rathod was the common ancestor. He was having five sons namely Mayram, Parshu, Narsing, Harsing and Balu. Vishram died some time between 1945 and 1950. Mayram and Parshu had already separated from the joint family during the life time of Vishram and the other three brothers continued to remain joint. They were having four lands bearing Gat Nos. 161, 262, 256 and 54 at village Bodhare. It is then alleged that the family was joint till the year 1975-1976. Thereafter by virtue of family arrangement Narsing was allotted Gat No. 161, Harsing was given Gat No. 262 and Balu was allotted Gat No. 256. It is specifically averred that Gat No. 54 continued to be a joint family property but still it was trifurcated after demise of Narsing in the year 1977. The Eastern portion was allotted to Balu. Western portion was allotted to Narsing and the middle 1/3rd was allotted to Harsing. Accordingly each of them was put in exclusive possession of their respective 1/3rd portion.
4. It is then averred that plaintiffs are the heirs of Harsing, defendant Nos. 1 to 23 are the heirs of Narsing and defendant Nos. 24 to 27 are the heirs of Balu.
5. It is averred that in spite of such separate cultivation of their respective portions of Gat No. 54, the defendant nos. 1 to 14 (respondent Nos. 10 to 22 and 34) by three separate sale-deeds dated 22.05.2017, 23.05.2017 and 24.05.2017 sold the entire land Gat No. 54 to the petitioner. It is therefore averred that the sale-deeds are void and not binding on the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (plaintiffs). They claimed declaration to that effect as well as perpetual injunction to protect their possession in the middle 1/3rd portion of Gat No. 54, which has been called as suit property. They also prayed for temporary injunction by filing application (Exhibit 6) restraining the petitioner from obstructing their possession over the middle 1/3rd portion from Gat No. 54.
6. The petitioner contested the suit denying all the averments except the fact that it has purchased the entire land Gat No. 54 under the three sale-deeds from the defendant Nos. 1 to 14. It asserted that Narsing was exclusive owner in possession of entire land Gat No. 54. His name was appearing in the revenue record for more than 40 years and pursuant to the sale-deeds it was put in possession of the entire land where it has erected a solar panel complex for generating energy. It also contended that it has got the sale-deeds executed after publishing a notice dated 15.09.2016.
7. The defendant Nos. 19 and 22 (respondent Nos. 8 and 9) preferred a counter claim, claiming to be heirs of two daughters of Narsing namely Shantibai and Shevantabai and asserted their right, title and share in the land Gat No. 54 and by separ
