Statutory titles established under tenancy laws are binding and preclude claims for partition unless substantial evidence supports joint ownership, failing which civil court jurisdiction is ousted.

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Appellant and Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for Respondents.

2. This Second Appeal is filed to challenge the judgment dated 21.01.2017 passed by the learned District Court, Raigad, Alibag in First Appeal No.62 of 2006. Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 is filed by Appellant’s sister Savitribai in the Civil Court at Uran seeking partition and her share in the Hindu joint family property i.e. kul right in the estate of her deceased father Ramji Patil and deceased mother Yenibai / Venibai Ramji Patil.

3. By judgment dated 08.02.2006, the Suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court. By judgment dated 21.01.2017, First Appeal filed by Appellant was dismissed by the learned District Court, Raigad at Alibag. Hence, present Second Appeal.

4. On 03.07.2017, this Court admitted the Second Appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:-

“(i) Whether the trial Court and the Appellate Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment and decree have erroneously ignored the provisions of Sections 32M, 32G, 85, 85-A and 320 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (the said Act), 1948, and the orders passed in 1958 by the Appropriate Authority in the proceedings under the said Act, under sections 32G and 32M which orders are binding on Civil Courts.

(iv) Whether both the trial court and the Appellate Court whilst passing the impugned judgments and decree, erred in not applying the provisions of Article 65-B of the Limitation Act to the suit claim of partition and share in joint Hindu Family and also in the estate of the Hindu female (mother) who died in the year 1978 and Hindu male (father) who died in the year 1949".

5. The following facts require consideration for determining the present Second Appeal and the points for determination framed by this Court:-

5.1. Suit property is nomenclatured as Survey Nos.21, 22 and 29/1 situated at Village - Vindhane, Taluka - Uran, District - Raigad, Maharashtra. Admittedly prior to the year 1949, Ramji Patil father of the original parties before the Court was the kul i.e. protected tenant of the suit property. He expired in the year 1949. Pursuant to which name of his wife Yenibai / Venibai was mutated in the Revenue Record vide Mutation Entry No.680 on 13.11.1952.

5.2. Record indicates that since Yenibai did not cultivate the suit property and her daughter Krishnabai (Appellant) was accepted as kul and her name was reflected as the protected tenant in the Revenue Record sometime in 1957. By operation of law, in the year 1961 title of Krishnabai in the suit property was perfected pursuant to order passed under Section 32G and sale certificate issued under 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘the said Act’) which were duly complied with by Krishnabai. Sale Certificate under 32M in respect of suit property was issued in favour of Krishnabai and record of rights were accordingly mutated to reflect her name.

5.3. In the year 1978, Yenibai / Venibai - mother of original parties to Suit i.e Savitribai and Krishnabai expired. Savitribai, and sister of Krishnabai filed Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 seeking partition of the estate namely suit property belonging to her deceased parents i.e. Ramji Patil and Yenibai / Venibai. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit on 08.02.2006. Being aggrieved, Krishnabai filed Appeal No.62 of 2006 which was dismissed by Appe