IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Salasar Estate Developers LLP – Petitioner
Versus
Rufina Walter Gomes & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15436, 1124 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Mutation Entry - Property Dispute - MLRC 1966, Section 157 - The court discussed the long-standing Mutation Entry, possession, and family arrangement to determine the rightful ownership of the suit property. The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was based on suppression of facts and malafide intentions, and quashed the injunction orders in favor of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between the heirs of Shelya Pavlu Gomes regarding the ownership of a suit property. The plaintiffs claimed to be the only legal heirs entitled to the property, while the defendants contested this claim based on a long-standing Mutation Entry and possession by Francis's branch.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was based on suppression of facts and malafide intentions, and quashed the injunction orders in favor of the defendant. The court directed the trial court to determine the suit expeditiously and imposed exemplary costs on the plaintiffs for their conduct.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the rightful ownership of the suit property, the validity of the Mutation Entry, and the plaintiffs' suppression of facts and malafide intentions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the long-standing Mutation Entry, possession, and family arrangement, which indicated that the plaintiffs' claim was untenable due to suppression of facts and malafide intentions.
Final Decision: Both Writ Petitions were allowed, the injunction orders were quashed, and the plaintiffs were directed to pay exemplary costs. The court directed the trial court to determine the suit expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shiralkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP/15436/2023, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP/1124/2024 & Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Respondents in both Writ Petitions. Both Petitions challenge the same set of common orders and are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment finally by consent of parties.
2. Writ Petition No. 15436/2023 is filed by Salasar Estate Developers LLP who is Defendant No. 2 in the Suit filed by Plaintiffs which is Regular Civil Suit No. 954/2016. Writ Petition No. 1124/2024 is filed by heirs of one Martha Joseph Gomes who are arrayed against Defendant No. 1 in the Suit proceedings. Reliefs prayed for in the Suit are at page Nos. 217-220 of the Writ Petition wherein Suit plaint has been annexed. Defendant No. 4 is supporting the Plaintiffs in the Trial Court. Suit proceeds on the basis that suit property being New Survey No. 180, Hissa No. 4, area admeasuring 7850 sq. mtrs. Situated at Village Navghar, Bhayandar (E), Taluka & District Thane belong to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 4. Suit is filed for declaration, partition, demarcation, possession and permanent injunction by Plaintiffs. Paragraph No. 2 of the Suit plaint proceeds on the basis of a family tree wherein Plaintiffs claim to be successors-in-title of one Shelya Pavlu Gomes who expired intestate according to Plaintiffs. Cause of action stated in Suit plaint is to have occurred in the month of July 2014 when Plaintiff No. 2 claims to have visited the suit property and learnt that construction was started on the suit property. Suit is therefore filed in the year 2016. Just before filing of Suit proceedings, Plaintiffs had approached the SDO for mutation of their names in the Revenue Record pertaining to the Suit property. They were directed to approach the Competent Authority. According to Plaintiffs Mutation Entry No. 1932 was mutated fraudulently by misrepresentation before the Revenue Officer, since as per Mutation Entry No. 1934, after demise of the late Pavlu Shelya Gomes, Plaintiffs’ names were mutated by Mutation Entry No. 1934, but the same course was not followed while mutating their names qua Mutation Entry No. 1932 and therefore a fraud was committed. Plaintiffs would aver that Mutation Entry No. 1932 was therefore challenged by them before the Competent Authority in RTS proceedings unsuccessfully before the Competent Authorities and against that dismissal, statutory appeal is pending. It needs to be stated that this Mutation Entry is of the year 1965 and it was challenged by Plaintiffs in the year 2016. It is claimed by Plaintiffs that suit property is ancestral property belonging to Shelya Pavlu Gomes and Plaintiffs are the only legal heirs entitled to the same. Rather Plaintiffs have virtually disowned the two other legal heirs / branches of Shelya Pavlu Gomes. Such is the sum and substance of the Suit plaint.
3. Exh. 5 is filed by Plaintiffs which is allowed by order dated 10.06.2019. In Misc. Civil Appeal proceedings, learned Appellate Court by order dated 22.06.2023 dismissed the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal by concluding that Plaintiffs being legal heirs of Pavlu Shelya Gomes have right, title and interest in the Suit property and have proved prima facie case. Both orders below Exh. 5 are challenged before me in two separate Writ Petitions which are referred to herein above since injunction is placed upon Defendant No.2 who is developing the suit property.
4. While maintaining the challenge, the facts pleaded by Defendant No. 2 – Developer and Defendant No. 1 – heirs of Shelya Pavlu Gomes are extremely shocking. In the first instance, the family tree referred to and relied upon by the Plaintiffs in paragraph No. 2 of the Suit plaint is challenged prima facie. According to Petitioners, Shelya Pavlu Gomes was survived by three sons i.e. Pavlu, Mariyan and Francis.
5. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate along with
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim based on suppression of facts and malafide intentions is untenable, and the court may quash injunction orders and impose exemplary cos....
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate ownership with clear evidence; mere possession is inadequate for claims. Title must be proven, not presumed.
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of valid legal documents, such as registered family arrangements, and highlights the limitations of mutation entries and the requirements for proving adverse po....
A suit concerning ancestral property cannot be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) for limitation without considering the factual context and evidence, as mixed questions of law and fact arise.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to substantiate their claims with valid evidence, as mere possession or revenue entries are insufficient to establish title.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
In mofussil litigation, courts should interpret pleadings liberally to serve substantial justice. While a plaintiff must prove title independently and cannot rely on revenue records alone, a party in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.