SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(BOM) 2

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.B. Deshmukh, J
Sumatibai W/O Ranganathrao Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra S/O Achutrao Futane on 12 August 2008 – Respondent
1150 OF 2005



Advocates:
Mr. Rohit Sarvadnya, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A.S.Kasliwal, Advocate instructed by Advocate Miss. N.M.Jain, for the Respondents.

A registered sale deed establishes title to property, which cannot be extinguished by the absence of a mutation entry; adverse possession must be adequately pleaded and proven.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 and Order 41 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Sections 149 and 154 - Registered sale deed - Title of transferee cannot be extinguished due to absence of mutation entry - Adverse possession not established by defendants - Plaintiff's title upheld based on registered sale deed dated 21st December, 1971. (Paras 16, 18, 20)

(B) Pleadings - Importance of pleadings in civil litigation - Foundation of the case must be in the pleadings - Variance in pleading and proof not permissible. (Paras 5, 10)

(C) Adverse possession - Defendants failed to adequately plead and prove adverse possession - Statutory period not established. (Paras 14, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, claiming ownership through a registered sale deed from her uncle. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld this decision.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the plaintiff's title was intact despite the absence of a mutation entry in her name, and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession.

Issues: Whether the title of the transferee can be extinguished due to lack of mutation entry, and whether the defendants established adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a registered sale deed is sufficient to establish title, and the absence of a mutation entry does not extinguish that title. The defendants' claim of adverse possession was not adequately supported.

Result: Second appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit decreed.

ORAL JUDGEMENT:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff, in Regular Civil Suit No.272 of 1993, had filed said suit against B defendants for possession of the suit land. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties, dismissed the suit by its judgment and order passed on 22nd December, 1995. This judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, was challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 1996 under section 96 read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code, for short). The first Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by the u judgment and decree passed on 25th February, 2005. This judgment and decree is challenged by the aggrieved plaintiff, by filing the present second appeal.

3. At the out set, it is to be noted that this appeal was listed for admission before this Court on 18th July, 200i5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court has admitted the appeal. Both the learned counsel fairly concedes that at the time of admission of this second appeal, no ground, set out in the memo of second appeal, was accepted by this Court to be the ground/s involving substantial question of law, neither substantial question of law was formulated, by this Court. It is in this premise, I have heard o the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Advocate for the Appellants has filed additional grounds with a contention that these grounds are involving substantial questions of law. These grounds are taken on record, copy of which is served to the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. These are Ground Nos.I to IV. Liberty was granted in favour of the Appellants to amend the memo of second appeal. Said amendment is accordingly carried out by the Appellants. Out of these four grounds, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am accepting Ground Nos.I and III as grounds involving substantial questions of law. These grounds are reproduced herein below:

"I. Whether the title of transferee by way of registered sale deed can be deemed to be extinguished merely because mutation entry in favour of transferee is not recorded despite of Section 154 and Rule 11 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code casts duty upon the revenue authority?

"III. Consideration of possession of father who himself is a witness to the registered sale deed in favour of married daughter, be taken as hostile when the o father himself or subsequently brothers of a married daughter do neither denied the title of married daughter nor make their claim hostile to the true owner?

. I have accepted these two grounds involving substantial question of law. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

4. Since the plaintiff is the Appellant in this second appeal, parties are referred to their status as plaintiff and defendants in this second u appeal.

5. The record and proceeding is available. Both the learned counsel have referred to record and proceedings, while addressing the Court. The pleading in civil suit is important. The parties to the civil litigation are expected to plead material facts before the Court. First opportunity is available to the plaintiff/s approaching to the civil Court. The grievance of the plaintiff/s in the form of material facts is expected to be pleaded in the plaint itself. On issuance of the summons, the defendant/s, in fact, is/ are called upon to meet the pleading of the plaintiff/s and apart from response to that pleading, is/ are expected to plead his/ their own case. Word "pleading" is defined under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code. In relation to plaintiff/s, plaint is the pleading and written statement is the pleading in relation to the defendant/s. This pleading is important from two more view points. The Court, at the first instance i.e. the trial Court has to frame issues under order XIV of the Code while considering the rival pleadings of the parties. The trial Court, thus, has to find out the issues on which parties are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top