LexVASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. versus MOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1087 VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. v. MOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.821-825 of 2009) OCTOBER 9, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Injunction - Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Respondents-plaintiffs claiming to be owners of land, filed c suits for injunction by against companies raising constructions on the suit land - Case of construction companies that they were authorised to raise the constructions by the villagers claiming to be owners of the land - Subsequently, impleadment of appellants-defendants D as parties to the suits - Denial of title of the respondents by the appellants - Respondents seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the relief of declaration of title which was allowed - Respondents' case that suit land devolved upon him through his grand father and father - Appellants' case E that as per the mutation entries of the years 1916and1927,. the land was held by respondent's grand father and thereafter by respondent's father on behalf of the villagers - Dismissal of suits by trial court- However, first appellate court and High F Cowt decreed the suits in favour of the respondents relying on the order by the revenue authority that the mutation entries were doubtful in view of certain interpolations or overwritings in the said mutation entries - On appeal, held: Mutation entries do not conclusively establish title - Plea of the G appellants that the title of the respondent was found in their favour merely on the basis of the mutation entries cannot be accepted- Title of the respondent to land covered by survey No.43, 49 and 54 is established- Said survey numbers were 1087 H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A mentionE1d against the mutation entries - If the entry with regard to the land being held on behalf of the villagers as made in the mutation records are to be ignored, on account of the finclings recorded in the order of the revenue authority, which were approved in the appeal proceedings as being 8 findings of fact recorded on the basis of the evidence on record, the title of the respondents to the suit land covered by the- survey Nos. is proved and established. c D Siddalingamma &Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 366:2001 (8) SCC 561 - referred to.- Case Law Reference 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 Referred to. Para 12. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 821- 825 of2009. Vi nay Nava re, Satyajeet Kr., Abha R. Sharma, Advs., for E the Appel!atns. Jay Savla, Renuka Sahu, Abhinav Sharma, E. C. Agrawala,Advs., for the Respondents. F The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suits (Nos. 124 of 1982 and 125 of 1982) for declaration of title and injunction were dismissed by the learned trial court. In first appeal, the G learned District Judge reversed the decree of dismissal and decided the suits in favour of the plaintiffs. The said decree has been affirmed in second appeal by the Bombay High Court. Aggrieved the present appeals have been filed by the defendants in the two suits. H 2. Insofar as recital of the relevant facts is concerned it VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. v. MOHAN HIRACHAND 1089 SHAH & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] will suffice to notice that the plaintiffs' suits were initially for A injunction against one Essar Construction Company (Suit No.125 of 1982) and one Ardeshir B. Kurshetji & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.124 of 1982) who were raising certain constructions on the suit land of which the plaintiffs claimed to be owners. Initially the present appellants/defendants were not 8 parties to the said suits. However, subsequently they were impleaded as defendants as, according to the plaintiffs, they were informed by the construction companies that they were authorised to raise the constructions on the suit land by the c villagers of Mandva Village who claimed to be owners of the land. The appellants/defendants who were so impleaded and proceeded against in a representative capacity filed their written statement in the suits denying the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted their title, specifically by seeking the o additional relief of declaration of title which was allowed to be brought on record by permitting an amendment of the suits insofar as the relief(s) claimed is concerned. 3. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs date to the year E 1916 when the suit land measuring 14
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.