Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerns agricultural land Gat No. 174 admeasuring 2 Hector 83.9 Ares situated at Village Tevurvadi, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur. The petitioner, Tanaji Satuppa Waghmare, claimed to be a tenant in possession of the suit land, alleging he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988 under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and has been cultivating it since. The original owner, Domiyav Kaitan Shirodkar, filed Civil Suit No. 116 of 1988 for perpetual injunction, which was dismissed, and no appeal was preferred. The petitioner contended that in 1989, the Survey Officer acknowledged his possession and recorded his name in the 7/12 extract as a tenant. The respondent, Krishna Satuppa Patil, who purchased the property from the original owner, challenged the petitioner's claim. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the petitioner failed to prove his tenancy and that the mutation entry was obtained without notice to the original owner. The High Court, in writ petition No. 6996 of 2005, dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to establish tenancy, and the dismissal of the civil suit did not confer tenancy rights. The court also noted that the mutation entry was made without notice to the original owner and thus was not binding. The decision in this writ petition governed the other two matters (Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005 and Second Appeal No. 257 of 2004), which were also dismissed. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings as no substantial question of law arose.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Proof of Tenancy - Burden of Proof - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in possession since prior to 1988. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his tenancy, and the dismissal of the civil suit filed by the original owner did not establish tenancy. The mutation entry in 7/12 extract was obtained without notice to the original owner and thus could not be relied upon. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Mutation Entry - Validity - Notice Requirement - The court observed that the mutation entry recording the petitioner as tenant was made without notice to the original owner, and therefore, the entry was not binding. The petitioner's possession was not proved to be as a tenant. (Paras 3-4)
C) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Scope - The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner was not a tenant, as no substantial question of law arose. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is a tenant in possession of the suit land and whether the mutation entry recording him as such is valid.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2005 is dismissed. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005 and Second Appeal No. 257 of 2004 are also dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Mutation entry
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Civil suit
- Perpetual injunction
- Possession
- 7/12 extract
- Notice
- Concurrent findings
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 17
Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2005 (lead matter) with Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005 and Second Appeal No. 257 of 2004
Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for petitioner (in WP 4536/2005) and for respondent (in WP 6996/2005 and SA 257/2004); Mr. A.Y. Sakhare with Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for respondent no.1 (in WP 4536/2005) and for petitioner (in WP 6996/2005 and SA 257/2004)
Tanaji Satuppa Waghmare (in WP 4536/2005) / Krishna Satuppa Patil (in WP 6996/2005 and SA 257/2004)
Krishna Satuppa Patil & Ors. (in WP 4536/2005) / Tanaji Satuppa Vaghamare and Ors. (in WP 6996/2005 and SA 257/2004)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging concurrent findings of courts below regarding tenancy rights and mutation entry in agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the orders of the courts below and to establish his tenancy rights over the suit land.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be a tenant in possession of the suit land and challenged the mutation entry and the orders of the lower courts.
Previous Decisions
Civil Suit No. 116 of 1988 filed by original owner for perpetual injunction was dismissed and became final. The trial court and first appellate court held that petitioner failed to prove tenancy.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is a tenant in possession of the suit land?
Whether the mutation entry recording the petitioner as tenant is valid?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988, the civil suit was dismissed, and his name was recorded in 7/12 extract as tenant in 1989.
Respondent argued that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence of tenancy and the mutation entry was obtained without notice to the original owner.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner failed to prove his tenancy by producing any documentary evidence. The dismissal of the civil suit filed by the original owner does not establish tenancy. The mutation entry in the 7/12 extract was obtained without notice to the original owner and thus is not binding. Concurrent findings of fact by the courts below cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is claiming to be a tenant in possession and it is his case that he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988 in terms of the provision of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and since 1988 he is cultivating the suit land till today.
It is the case of the petitioner that in 1989 the Survey Officer acknowledged that the petitioner is in possession of the said property and recorded the name of the petitioner in 7/12 extract as the tenant in possession of the suit property.
The petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is a tenant in respect of the suit property.
The mutation entry was made without notice to the original owner and therefore the said entry cannot be relied upon.
Procedural History
Original owner Domiyav Kaitan Shirodkar filed Civil Suit No. 116 of 1988 for perpetual injunction, which was dismissed and became final. The petitioner claimed tenancy and mutation entry was made in 1989. The respondent purchased the property and challenged the petitioner's claim. The trial court and first appellate court held against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2005, and the other two matters (WP 4536/2005 and SA 257/2004) were tagged. All three were disposed of by common judgment on 19th December 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
