Second Appeal No.11/2021

:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

SECOND APPEAL NO.11 OF 2021 WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.483 OF 2021 WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.484 OF 2021

Murlidhar s/o Kisanrao Dongare

Since deceased, through his L.Rs.

Dattatraya s/o Murlidhar Dongare & ors. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

… RESPONDENTS

.......

Shri Satyajeet S. Dixit, Advocate for appellants

Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for State.

....…

CORAM :

R. G. AVACHAT, J.

Date of reserving order : 9th April, 2021

Date of pronouncing order : 6th May, 2021

O R D E R :

The challenge in this Second Appeal is to the

judgment and decree dated 25/7/2007, passed by the Court

of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner in a suit, Regular

Civil Suit No.220/2004 and confirmed by the judgment and

decree dated 30/9/2019, passed by District Judge-2,

Sangamner in Regular Civil Appeal No.101/2008. By the

Second Appeal No.11/2021

:: 2 ::

impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the appellant/

plaintiff came to be dismissed. The original plaintiff passed

away pending first appeal. The legal representatives of

original plaintiff are, therefore, before this Court in Second

Appeal.

2.

Heard Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants.

The original plaintiff filed the suit for relief of

declaration that he has become the owner of the agricultural

land Gut No.25/3, admeasuring 3 Hectors 44 R, situated at

village Rayate, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar (for

short the suit land). The consequential relief of permanent

injunction was also asked for so as to perpetually protect his

possession over the suit land. It is the case of the appellants

that the suit land belong to the State of Maharashtra

(respondent/ defendant No.1). The respondents No.2 and 3

are the Sub-Divisional officer and Tahsildar of Sangamner

respectively. Respondent No.4 is the Sarpanch of the village

Rayate. It is also the case of the appellants that the suit land

was granted to the original plaintiff on lease for one year in

1963. Since then he has been in possession of the suit land.

By virtue of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Second Appeal No.11/2021

:: 3 ::

Code, 1966 (MLRC), he became the owner of the suit land.

The respondents No.1 to 3, however, shown the suit land to

have been transferred to the defendant No.4. The plaintiff

had moved number of applications to respondents No.1 to 3

for grant of the suit land, permanently.

3.

Both the courts below gave a concurrent finding of

fact, holding the plaintiff to have neither proved his title to the

suit land nor possession thereon.

4.

Shri S.S. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants

would submit that, the respondents No.1 to 3 did not file

written statement. The averments in the plaint have as such

not been disputed. The trial Court allowed the Advocate for

the respondents No.1 to 3 to cross-examine the plaintiff.

Whatever admission have come on record during cross-

examination of the plaintiff, should not have been relied for

want of factual foundation as no written statement was filed.

The provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the MLRC have not

been properly interpreted. In the first appeal, a compromise

was entered into between the appellant and the respondent

No.4 to the extent of some portion of the suit land. The

compromise pursis duly executed by the parties was produced

Second Appeal No.11/2021

:: 4 ::

before the Court. The averments therein would undoubtedly

indicate the plaintiff/ appellant to have been in possession of

the suit land. The entries in the revenue record have

presumptive value. Both the courts below have, however,

ignored the revenue record of the suit land. In the first

appeal, the respondent No.4 had filed an application for

adducing additional evidence along with certain documents.

Without giving any opportunity of hearing to t