Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a partition suit filed by the original plaintiff, the first wife of deceased Shankarrao Budhwant, against his alleged second wife and their children, seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral properties. Shankarrao died intestate on 23-08-2010, leaving behind agricultural lands, a house, and movables. The plaintiff had married Shankarrao around 1942, and they had two daughters (defendants no.01 and 02). It was admitted that defendant no.03 lived with Shankarrao as his wife until his death, but the plaintiff contended that this later marriage was void ab initio as her own marriage was still subsisting. The plaintiff alleged that after Shankarrao's death, she discovered that mutation entry no.824 dated 01-07-1973 had been made in defendant no.03's name regarding land Gut no.225, allegedly for maintenance, and mutation entry no.1675 dated 04-04-2010 showed partition of 4 hectares 73 R from Gut no.206 in favor of defendant no.03. Additionally, a sale deed dated 27-04-1999 transferred 4 gunthas from Gut no.206 to defendants no.04 and 05 without consideration. The plaintiff claimed that these transactions were illegal and not binding, and she sought partition of all properties. The trial court partly decreed the suit, declaring the mutation entries illegal and allotting a 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and her daughters, but denied mesne profits. Defendant no.03 appealed, and the plaintiff also appealed for mesne profits. The first appellate court partly allowed defendant no.03's appeal, declaring the mutation entries legal and binding, confirming partition except for lands Gut no.225 and 206, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff then filed two second appeals before the High Court. At the hearing, arguments centered on whether mutation entries confer title, the validity of the second marriage, limitation, and entitlement to mesne profits. The court heard the appeals finally at admission stage and reserved judgment on 26-02-2019, pronounced on 29-04-2019. The available text does not include the court's final decision or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the marriage of the second wife was legally valid; Whether mutation entries confer title and suit barred by limitation; Whether plaintiff entitled to mesne profits.
Law Points
- mutation entries do not confer title
- second marriage void if first subsisting
- limitation for challenging mutation entries
- partition validity
- mesne profits
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 9
Second Appeal No. 0561 of 2015 and Second Appeal No. 0562 of 2015
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Mr. S.S. Wagh, Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Mr. N.V. Gaware, Mr. M.R. Khutwad
Yamunabai Shankarrao Budhwant
Satyabhamabai Eknathrao Bangar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition, separate possession, and injunction of ancestral properties
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought partition, separate possession, declaration that mutation entries and sale deed were illegal, and mesne profits
Filing Reason
After Shankarrao's death, plaintiff discovered illegal mutation entries and transfer of properties to second wife and her sons, and oral request for partition was refused
Previous Decisions
Trial court partly decreed the suit, declared mutation entries no.824 and 1675 illegal, and awarded 1/3rd share to plaintiff and defendants no.01 and 02; mesne profits not awarded. First appellate court dismissed plaintiff's appeal for mesne profits and partly allowed defendant no.03's appeal, declaring mutation entries legal and binding, and confirmed partition except for Gut no.225 and 206.
Issues
Whether the marriage of defendant no.03 with Shankarrao was legally valid
Whether mutation entries confer title and can be challenged by plaintiff
Whether suit barred by limitation as mutation entry dated 1973 was challenged in 2010
Whether plaintiff entitled to mesne profits
Whether partition was correctly determined by trial court
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that mutation entries do not create title and are made for fiscal purposes; defendant no.03's marriage was void as prior marriage subsisted; sale deed was without consideration and legal necessity; partition without notice to plaintiff is invalid; limitation does not apply as no title is created; mesne profits should be awarded.
Respondent no.03 argued that Shankarrao gave land Gut no.225 towards maintenance and mutation recorded in 1973; partition was by order of Tahsildar under Section 85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; defendant no.03 claimed ownership by adverse possession.
Judgment Excerpts
Mutation entries are made for fiscal purposes and, therefore, she cannot claim ownership.
marriage is void ab initio because the marriage between plaintiff and Shankarrao was still subsisting
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No. 258 of 2010 filed before 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar. Trial court partly decreed. Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2013 (by plaintiff) and RCA No. 35 of 2013 (by defendant no.03) filed before District Court, Ahmednagar. First appellate court dismissed plaintiff's appeal and allowed defendant's appeal partly. Second Appeals filed and heard finally at admission stage; judgment reserved on 26-02-2019 and pronounced on 29-04-2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 85
- Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act:
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
