Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 775
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAURI GODSE, J.
Rangnath Shivram Medankar - Appellant
Vs.
Maruti Dyanoba Medankar - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 234 of 2002 With Interim Application No. 14691 Of 2023 In Second Appeal No. 234 of 2002
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w. Mr. Namitkumar S. Pansare
For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar a/w. Mr. Sandesh More, Mr. Satish Aher, Mr. Hitendra Gandhi, Mr. Om. Gandhi, Mr. Akash Jawale
Appellate courts may not interfere with concurrent findings of trial courts unless such findings are perverse. Additionally, a party cannot succeed in a suit for declaration of title if they fail to plead a clear source of ownership and attempt to travel beyond their original pleadings.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Law of Evidence - Pleadings - Importance of pleading source of title clearly - Parties are bound by their pleadings and courts cannot record findings on issues not raised in the pleadings - Any finding recorded dehors the pleadings is without jurisdiction. (Para 47)
(B) Second Appeal - Scope and ambit - Power of appellate court to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts - Interference restricted to cases of perversity or illegality - An order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 47 and 49)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming possession and ownership of agricultural property. The defendant contended that the property had vested in the government due to a default in the repayment of a state-provided loan and was subsequently regranted to the defendant's family. Both lower courts concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute entitlement to the suit property and that the record of rights supported the defendant's position. The plaintiff challenged these concurrent findings in the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the plaintiff had failed to properly plead or prove the source of title for the entire suit property. The court held that the evidence produced was insufficient to establish the plaintiff's case of absolute ownership and that the findings of the lower courts, being based on the documents of title and historical revenue records, were not perverse. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff's case rested on assumptions not substantiated by the pleadings and evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration of ownership despite failing to specify the source of title in the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an appellate court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a party cannot travel beyond their pleadings, and since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear title or establish a legal basis to divest the defendant of the property, the suit for declaration and injunction was rightly dismissed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and respective party pleadings regarding title and consolidation. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. concurrent findings of the lower courts questioning title and possession claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. appellants' argument: title documents and revenue entries confirm sole ownership. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 25) |
| 4. procedural history of multiple revenue and rts proceedings during appeal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. respondent's argument: effect of government auction and lack of pleadings for extra evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. court analysis of transaction sequence, partition, and the impact of the tagai loan. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. evaluation of additional evidence and the binding limit of pleadings in civil jurisdiction. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. conclusion: appeal dismissed; parties permitted to seek remedy via appropriate partition proceedings. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT:
GAURI GODSE, J.
1) This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing his suit. During the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff expired, and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that the defendant has no right, title or interest of whatsoever nature in the suit property. The plaintiff prayed for a further declaration that, based on Mutation Entry No. 4251, dated 15th May 1992 (“ME No. 4251”) the defendant was not entitled to obstruct the plaintiff’s possession as owner of the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing his possession of the suit property.
2) The Interim Application seeks permission to produce documents on the record as additional evidence. Since the additional documents are copies of subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities, there was no opposition to relying on and referring to them. Hence, the photocopies annexed to the Interim Application were permitted to be referred to and relied upon to the extent of examining their effect on the prayers in the suit and whether they can be permitted to be produced on record as additional evidence.
3) The second appeal is admitted by framing a substantial question of law vide order dated 24th November 2005, which reads as under:-
“Heard. Admit. In view of Exhs 65 and 66 the finding given by Court below is perverse or correct?”
PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT:
4) The suit is filed in respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 178/2A and Survey No. 178/2B, which originally was Survey No. 178/2. The said survey number is allotted Gat No. 952 for a total area of 73 Ares (“suit property”). The suit property was originally owned by the defendant’s grandfather, that is, Mahadu Jijaba Medankar (“Mahadu”). Out of the suit property, Survey No. 178/2A, admeasuring 36.5 gunthas, was purchased by the plaintiff's grandfather, that is, Krishna Bholu Medankar (“Krishna”), from Mahadu, and since then, he was cultivating it as the owner. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father (“Shivram”) was cultivating it, and thereafter the plaintiff is cultivating the same. Similarly, Survey No. 178/2B was given to Krishna by Mahadu for cultivation in 1946, and the said land is also in possession of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit property was always in the possession and cultivation of the plaintiff’s grandfather, Krishna, then of the plaintiff’s father, Shivram, and then of the plaintiff.
5) When the consolidation scheme was implemented, Survey Nos. 178/2A and 178/2B were allotted Gat No. 952. The plaintiff’s grandfather, Krishna, expired on 20th January 1960. During his lifetime, he had partitioned all his properties, and Survey No. 178/2A was allotted to the plaintiff’s father, Shivram, and the plaintiff received it after the death of the plaintiff’s father on 31st March 1987.
6
