The Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine whether property purchased under the Tenancy Act is individual or joint family property, especially when no inquiry was conducted by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

A. THE CHALLENGE

1. These two Appeals are filed by the Appellants challenging separate Judgments delivered by the District Court, Sindhudurg in Regular Civil Appeal No. 81/2015 and Regular Civil Appeal No.108/2015. The District Court has proceeded to dismiss both the Appeals filed by the Appellant and has confirmed the decrees of the Trial Court. Resultantly, Regular Civil Suit No.14/2003 filed by the Appellant No. 1 seeking declaration of title and possession of land bearing Survey No. 170, Hissa No.2 is dismissed whereas Regular Civil Suit No.52/2003 filed by the Respondents for partition of suit property including the land at Survey No.170, Hissa No.2 is decreed. In short, the Appellants are aggrieved by the decisions of the Trial and the first Appellate Court in not treating the lands purchased by their father-Ganesh Babi Naik under the provisions of Section 32G and 32M of The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956 (‘Tenancy Act’) to be his self-acquired property.

B. FACTS

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are one Babi Naik was originally cultivating the lands at Village Kolgaon (i) bearing new Survey No.170 (old No.274) Hissa No.2, and (ii) bearing Survey No.37, Hissa No.31. Additionally, there is a house property in one of those lands bearing Municipal House No. 211-C together with an extension which is referred by the parties as a ‘mangar’. Babi Naik’s family tree is as under:

Babi Ganesh Shankar Shantaram Did not Ramakan Shank Shashikal Nirmala Sujata marry. Died Anusuya Sanjivani t ar a issuless

3. Ramakant Ganesh Naik filed Regular Civil Suit No.14/2003 only against his cousin Shankar Shantaram Naik in respect of only 2 properties viz. (i) land at Survey No.170, Hissa No.2 and (ii) Municipal House No.C-211. Ramakant claimed that the said two properties are exclusively owned by him and that Defendant-Shankar did not have any right, title or interest in the same. Ramakant’s claim of exclusive ownership to land at Survey No. 170, Hissa No.2 was premised on purchase of the same by his father-Ganesh in his exclusive name vide 32M certificate issued under the Tenancy Act in the year 1975. Ramakant, therefore, claimed that on account of issuance of 32M certificate in his father’s sole name, Shankar does not have any claim in respect of the land bearing Survey No.170, Hissa No.2 and also in the house property. Apparently, Ramakant was residing in House No.C-211 and therefore claimed ownership in respect thereof. Ramakant claimed that Shankar forcibly got his name mutated to the suit properties as a co-sharer. That, House No.C-211 is constructed by Ramakant at his own expense but he allowed Shankar to occupy 2 rooms on the western side of the house on temporary basis without rent. Ramakant therefore prayed for vacant possession of the suit property from Shankar.

4. Immediately after filing of Regular Civil Suit No.14/2003 by Ramakant on 30 January 2003, Anusaya, Shankar, Sanjivani and Susmita filed Regular Civil Suit No.52/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sawantwadi on 03 April 2003 seeking partition and separate possession of shares in respect of the 4 suit properties bearing (i) Survey No.170, Hissa No.2, (ii) Survey No.37, Hissa No.31, (iii) Sawantwadi Municipal House No.C-211 and (iv) constructed portion adjoining the House. Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.52/2003 claimed that the suit properties are joint family properties as their grandfather Babi Naik was cultivating agricultural lands, but their elder uncle Ganesh (Ramakant’s father) got his name exclusively recorded in the 32G and 32M proceedings. In the Suit, Ramakant and his sisters Nirmala and Sujata were impleaded as Defendants.

5. The Trial Court took up Ramakant’s suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.14/2003 for hearing and by Judgment and Order dated 24 December 2010, dismissed the same holding that Ramakant was not the exclusive owner of the suit properties therein. The Trial Court held that the suit property was tenan