VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS.versusMOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.

                    [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1087


                VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS.                             A

                               v.
            MOHAN HIRACHAND SHAH & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal Nos.821-825 of 2009)
                                                                     B
                      OCTOBER 9, 2015
        [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
     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
                                                                     H
                              1087
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.
             Siddalingamma &Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy2001
 c          (4) Suppl. SCR 366:2001 (8) SCC 561 - referred
            to.-

                          Case Law Reference

 D       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 14.5 acres was recorded
in the name of one Amarsi Gujjar, the grandfather of the present
respondent-plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon
demise of Amarsi Gujjar in the year 1926, the property devolved
by survivorship on Hirachand Gujjar, the father of the plaintiffs    F
and on his demise in the year 1971 the same devolved upon
the plaintiffs.

     4. The appellant-defendants, on being impleaded in the
suits, filed written statements contending, inter alia, that the o
mutation entry of the year 1916 showed Amarsi Gujjar as the
holder of the land on behalf of the villagers. He was described
as a Vahiwatadar of the villagers. Similarly, the mutation entry
of the year 1927 following the death of Amarsi Gujjar also
recorded Hirachand Gujjar as a Vahiwatadar and the land was H
1090         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A     shown as being held on behalf of the villagers. The above is
       the core of the claim of the respective parties on the basis of
       which certain supplemental pleas have also been raised which
       will be noticed as we proceed to delve further into the matter.

 B          5. The learned trial court, as already noticed, dismissed
       the suits of the plaintiffs. This was primarily on the basis that
       the mutation entries of the years 1916 and 1927, which formed
     • the foundation of the claims of the parties, indicated that the
       land was held by Amarsi Gujjar and thereafter by Hirachand
 (_'
       Gujjar on behalf of the villagers. What would be particularly
       relevant to be noticed, at this stage, out of the huge multitude
       of facts that confronts the Court is that there was a parallel
       revenue proceeding wherein the issue was one pertaining to
       the correctness of the aforesaid two mutation entries. The said
 D
       proceedings culminated in an order of the State Government
       dated 06.01.1993 passed in exercise of its revisional powers
        holding that the mutation entries of 1916 and consequently the
       entries of the year 1927 were e:ctremely doubtful in view of
  E certain interpolations or overwritings in the said mutation
       entries. Accordingly, the mutation entries were declared to be
       without any legal effect. The said order was challenged by the
        appellant in awrit petition which was heard and decided along
       with the second appeal in question. The order passed by the
  F High Court in the civil writ petition has also been challenged
        before us in the present appeals.

         6. In deciding the civil proceedings arising out of the suits
    in question, the first appellate court and the High Court
 Ci disagreed with the learned trial court and overturned the
    findings of the learned trial court on all the issues. It is the very
    same pleas raised before the forums below on the issues
    arising for determination, that are being resurrected in the
    present appeals, to contend that the conclusion of the first
 11 appellate court and the High Court are wholly untenable
  VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. v. MOHAN HIRACHAND                     1091
         SHAH & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

requiring the interference of this Court in the exercise of its A
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

     7. It is in the above conspectus of facts that a brief resume
of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties would be
necessary not only to recapitulate the issues arising for B
determination in the present appeals but also to take note of
what was urged before the forums below and the reasons for
the conclusions reached and the views expressed by the said
forums. which have culminated in the present appeal.
                                                                   c
     8. At the outset, Shri Vinay Navare, learned counsel for
the appellants has contended that against the findings of the
revisional authority in the reven!Je proceedings (order dated
6.1.1993) a writ petition bearing No. 5893 of 1993 was filed
before the High Court which was answered by the very same D
impugned order by holding that as the question of title has
been raised in the suit and found in favour of the plaintiffs it will
not be necessary to separately adjudicate the correctness of
the findings reached in the revenue proceedings. Shri Navare
has urged that neither the first appellate court nor the High E
Court had dealt with the legality of the mutation entries in
question. Consequently no specific finding in this regard was
recorded.· In fact, the courts below concluded the issue in favour
of the plaintiffs merely on the basis of the findings of the revenue F
authorities. Once the mutation entries of 1916 and 1927 were
so adjudged, another vital document which established the title
of the defendants i.e. Khata No.47 which recorded the name
of the villagers against the suit land came to be decided against
the defendants, consequentially, in a similar manner. It has been o
further urged on behalf of the.appellants that the materials on
 record had amply demonstrated that all other land belonging
to Amarsi Gujjar in his personal capacity were transferred in
 the name of his three sons Hirachand, Tapidas and Vittaldas.
 The mutation entries in respect of such land do not include the H
1092       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 /\suit land which fact would go to show that the suit land was not
   the personal property inherited by the legal heirs of the original
   owner, Amarsi Gujjar but was held by the said person on behalf
   of the villagers. It is additionally urged that some part of the
   suit land was acquired by the Government under the Land
 8 Acquisition Act and the materials on record indicate that
   possession of such land was handed over by Hirachand Gujjar
   on behalf of the villagers and compensation for such
   acquisition was received by Hirachand Gujjar alongwith two
 c other villagers, namely, Nathram and Chaya Nakhawa.

         9. It is further urged that the plaintiffs' suits was barred by
   limitation inasmuch as though the defendants had disputed
   the title of the plaintiffs to the suit land in the written statement
   filed in the year 1985, the plaintiffs had by an amendment of
 D
   the suits prayed for addition of the relief of declaration of title.
   The saicl amendment was allowed by the learned trial court on
   16 .07 .1 H95. The amended relief sought and granted, therefore,
   is clearly barred under the provisions of the Limitation Act, it is
 E urged.
        10 .. Finally, it is contended that though voluminous
   documE!nts were introduced in evidence on behalf of the
   plaintiffs to prove their title, none of the exhibited documents
 F had a relevant bearing to the survey numbers covering the suit
   lands except Survey No.43. It is, therefore, contended that the
   findings of the learned courts below regarding title of the
   plaintiffs is plainly untenable in law.

 G       11. The aforesaid arguments on behalf of the appellants
     have been countered by Shri Jay Savla learned counsel for
     the respondents by contending that the legitimacy of the
     mutation entries on the basis of which, primarily, the suit was
     dismissed by the learned trial court has been conclusively
 1-1 decided in the revenue proceedings holding the same to be
     highly suspicious in view of the interpolations and the
     VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. v. MOHAN HIRAeHAND                        1093
            SHAH & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] '

overwritings therein. The said facts and findings recorded A
thereon were noticed in the course of the adjudication of the
suits and were accepted by the learned courts below. The same
are essentially findings of fact. If the mutation entry of 1916
which was the foundation of the claim of the parties is suspect,
as has been held by the learned courts below, the claim of the 8
plaintiffs to ownership is established and the substratum of
the defendants' claim, including the claim of title on the basis
of khata No.4 7 and payment of revenue in respect of the land
covered by the said khata No. 47 (allegedly the suit land) will c
necessarily fall through. It is urged that the materials on record
and the documents relied upon do not conclusively prove that
compensation was received by Hirachand Gujjar on behalf of
the villagers. In any case, the said issue would also stand
concluded by the findings recorded in respect of the legitimacy 0
of the original mutation entries. So far as the plea of limitation
is concerned, it is urged that the order allowing the amendment
of the suits to bring on record the additional relief of declaration
of title has gone unchallenged and has attained finality in law.
Therefore, the issue with regard to limitation issue necessarily E
had to be decided in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the
said amendment(s) would relate back to the date of filing of
the suits. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on a judgment
of this Court in Siddalingamma &Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenov1.
                                                                         F
       12. We have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties. While there can be no manner of doubt
that mutation entries do not conclusively establish title, we
remain unimpressed by the arguments and contentions
advanced on behalf of the appellants that the title of the plaintiffs   G
in the instant case was found in their favour merely on the basis
of the mutation entries in question. The suit scheduled property
as described in the plaints filed in both the suits show that the

1
    2001 (8) sec 561.
                                                                        H
1094       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A suit land measuring 2 hectares 70 ares is covered by survey
   No.43, 49, 49A/1 and 54 which corresponds to new survey
   nos. 262, 214, 214A/1, 2148. The materials on record indicate
   that the title of the plaintiffs to land covered by survey No.43
   stands established by Exh.63 whereas land covered by survey
 B No.49 and 54 stands proved by Exh.154 and 158. It is the
   aforesaid survey numbers which are mentioned against the
   mutation entries of 1916 as well as the mutation entries of the
   year 1927. Coupled with the above, ifthe entry with regard to
 c the land being held on behalf of the villagers as made in the
   mutation records are to be ignored, on account of the findings
   recorded in the order of the revenue authority dated 6.1.1993,
   which findings have been finally approved in the appeal
   proceedings arising out of the suits as being findings of fact
 0 recorded on the basis of the evidence on record, there can be
    no difficulty in holding that the title of the plaintiffs to the suit
    land covered by the survey Nos. indicated above stands
    proved and established. The entries in khata No.47 would
    also have to be understood with reference to the conclusions
 E as above. Insofar as the land acquisition proceedings are
    concerned there is no conclusive material to hold that the
    payment of compensation was received by Hirachand Gujjar
    on behalf of the villagers so as to belie the case of the plaintiffs
    and/or establish the title of the defendants. The plea of the
 F defendants that the voluminous documents brought on record
    do not establish the title of the plaintiffs has already been dealt
    with in the context of the specific exhibits which are relatable
    to the survey Nos. relevant to the suit land. So far as the plea
    of limitation is concerned there can be no manner of doubt
 G
    that the amendment of the plaint(s) to incorporate the relief of
    declaration of title has necessarily to relate back to the date of
    filing of the suit. Once the said amendments were allowed
     and were not challenged by the defendants, the issue with
 H regard to limitation has to be decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
       I
       \
  VASANT BALU PATIL & ORS. v. MOHAN HIRACHAND                     1095
         SHAH & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

      13. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in A
the case of the appellants as laid before us on the grounds
and contentions as noticed. The appeals therefore will have to
fail and are accordingly dismissed. However in the facts and
circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
                                                                  B
Nidhi Jain                                   Appeals dismissed.