Disputes regarding property succession must be resolved by Civil Courts, not revenue authorities, affirming that heirs' rights need proper adjudication through judicial proceedings.

1. In a case where a dispute arises between claimants about succession to the estate allotted to a deceased decree-holder in a suit for partition, which forum would resolve such dispute and what would be the correct remedy to be adopted for resolution of such dispute are the issues which I am tasked upon to decide in this Petition.

2. The issues arise in the context of a challenge raised by the Petitioner-Vijay Shivram Pathare to the order dated 17 March 2021 passed by the Minister-Revenue, who has upheld the orders of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Additional Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer. Those revenue authorities had set aside Tehsildar’s Order carving out share of deceased decree holder-Anjanabai and handing over possession thereof in favour of Petitioner. Both Petitioner- Vijay and his brother-Deepak claim right to succeed to the estate of Anjanabai. Respondent No. 1 is the successor-in-title of Deepak, who felt that Tehsildar’s decision in handing over Anjanabai’s share to Vijay pursuant to receipt of precept from Civil Court could be challenged before various revenue authorities. As against this, it is Vijay’s contention that the correct remedy for Deepak’s successor-in-title was to move the Executing Court for raising an objection to the Tehsildar’s Order. Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that since substantive civil proceedings are pending between the parties, the issue of right to succeed to Anjanabai’s estate can be decided in those proceedings and therefore Tehsildar’s Order needed to be set aside by higher revenue authorities.

3. For better understating of the controversy between rival parties, narration of checkered history of the case would be necessary. Anjanabai Dinkar Dhamdhere and Shantabai Wamanrao Sable were real sisters, who instituted Regular Civil Suit No.943 of 1987 against Yashwant Maruti Lonkar for partition of suit properties claiming 3/5th share in the same. They also filed another Suit bearing R.C.S. No.1141 of 1987 for settlement of accounts of suit properties. The suit properties comprised lands bearing Survey No.31/2/8 adm. 01 H. 96 R and Survey No.26/8C/9/10 admeasuring 03 H. 8 R at Mundhwa, Keshavnagar, Pune. Both the suits were decreed by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune on 31 July 1997 declaring that Plaintiffs-Anjanabai and Shantabai are entitled for possession of their 3/5th share in suit property with a further direction to separate the shares from suit property and grant possession to them as per Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). The Defendant therein was also directed to pay Rs.450/- to Plaintiffs towards mesne profit with further direction to conduct inquiry for further amount of mesne profit. Preliminary decree was passed in R.C.S. No.943 of 1997 in respect of accounts.

4. Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar filed Civil Appeal Nos. 911 of 1997 and 912 of 1997 before the District Court, Pune challenging the decree. By judgment and order dated 04 September 2001, the appeals were dismissed. The Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar filed Second Appeal Nos.61 of 2002 and 62 of 2002 before this Court which came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 10 June 2013. Special Leave Petitions filed by the Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar were also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 21 O