Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAURI GODSE, J.
Shri Sadashiv Laxman Shelar – Appellant
Versus
Shri Maruti Laxman Shelar – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2001
Decided On : 02-07-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. U.B. Nighot
For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Soman a/w. Mr. Shivraj R. Patil i/b. Mr. Aditya Shirke, Mr. Y.S. Bhate
The civil court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property, even if held under a tenancy order in the name of an individual, belongs to a Hindu joint family or is the individual's exclusive property.
Headnote:The dispute concerns a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties, specifically focusing on whether a particular land parcel (Gat No. 354) was the exclusive property of one party or part of the joint family estate. The defendant claimed exclusive ownership based on an order under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which fixed the purchase price in his name. The trial and first appellate courts concurrently held that the property was joint family property, granting a 1/5th share to the plaintiff. The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine the status of the property as joint family property despite the existence of a tenancy order. The court reasoned that while tenancy issues are within the domain of Tenancy Authorities, the determination of whether a tenancy was held in an individual capacity or on behalf of a Hindu joint family is the exclusive province of the civil court. It was observed that the defendant acted as the Karta of the joint family and failed to prove that the purchase price was paid from an independent source of income. The second appeal is therefore dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over the nature of property (joint family vs exclusive) in a partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conflict between tenancy authority orders and civil court jurisdiction regarding property title. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. civil court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine joint family status of tenanted land. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. presumption of joint family property when held by karta without independent income. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. confirmation of concurrent findings on jurisdiction and property status leading to appeal dismissal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
GAURI GODSE, J.
1. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. Respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the original defendant nos. 2 to 4. The suit filed by respondent no.1 for partition and separate possession is decreed by the trial court, granting 1/5 th share to the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by defendant no.1, the trial court’s decree is confirmed. Hence, this second appeal challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees granting partition and separate possession. The second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law formulated in the order dated 10th August 2001, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.
Admit on the following question of law:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the civil court had a jurisdiction to determine the question relating to the tenancy and/or joint tenant.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The relationship between the parties is undisputed. One Sahadu was the original holder of the suit property who had two sons, Ramu and Laxman. According to defendant no. 1, a partition took place between Ramu and his brother Laxman prior to 1953. The plaintiff is one of Laxman’s sons. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the other sons of Laxman. According to the plaintiff, Laxman died in 1961. The suit properties were given to Laxman’s share in the partition between Ramu and Laxman. Hence, according to the plaintiff, he had a 1/5 th share in the suit properties being the son of Laxman.
3. The appellants are heirs of defendant no. 1, who opposed the suit claim on the ground that the suit property was partitioned in 1972, except land Gat No. 354. He contended that the Gat No. 354 was not the joint family property and that after the death of Laxman, the name of defendant no. 1 was entered as Karta of the joint family in respect of the properties except Gat No. 354. According to defendant no.1, Gat No. 354 was owned by one Kondabai and Krishna Shelar, and his uncle Rama Shelar, i.e. brother of his father Laxman, was the tenant in respect of the said Gat number. With the consent of his uncle, the name of defendant no. 1 was entered as a protected tenant as he was cultivating the same. He therefore claimed exclusive ownership over Gat No. 354 and opposed partition in respect of the said property. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 appeared; however, the suit proceeded without their written statement.
4. The trial court held that all the suit properties were the joint family properties and the theory of partition pleaded by defendant no.1 was not proved. Defendant no. 1’s claim of exclusive ownership over Gat No. 354 was also not accepted by the trial court. There was no dispute with respect to the other suit properties, and the only issue to be decided was whether Gat No. 354 was joint family property and whether the parties were entitled to partition. The trial court held that all suit properties, including Gat No. 354, were the joint family property and the parties were co-sharers. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendants were each entitled to a 1/5 share in the suit properties. The trial court’s decree was confirmed by the first appellate court upon dismissal of the appeal of defendant no. 1.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on 20th February 1972, the order under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultu
