Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

In the year 1951, that is to say on 26th September, 1951, the appellants herein who were the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, had purchased from the respondents, two acres of land from Survey No. 32/1 and had also purchased a share of 2 annas and 8 pie in a Rupee with regard to a well situated at Survey No. 32/3 for a total sum of Rs. 700/-. This sale deed was duly registered. There is absolutely no dispute between the parties with regard to this sale deed. The respondents herein also do not dispute the appellants title with regard to the two acres of land which is found in Survey No. 32/1. The only dispute is with regard to 2 annas and 8 pie share in the entire well which is situated at Survey No. 32/2. It appears that the respondents, without any notice whatsoever to the appellants, got the mutation entry changed with regard to the appellants right, title etc., regarding the aforesaid well. Only in the year 1983, the appellants came to know of the aforesaid unauthorised change in mutation entry and took objection to the same. It is the contention of the respondents that since the appellants did not actually use the well water and by virtue of change in the mutation entry, the respondents' claim that they have by adverse possession became sharer with regard to the 2 annas 8 pie share in the said well water. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 244 of 1984 before the Court of Civil Judge at Phaltan, District Satara, against the present appellants as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the supporting plaintiffs in that said suit. The plaintiffs suit was for cancellation of mutation entry with regard to the appellants 2 annas and 8 pie share in the suit well as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the present appellants from user of the said well water with regard to the 2 annas and 8 pie share in the said well water. The main contention of the plaintiffs in that suit was that, as the mutation entries were changed with regard to the names of the appellants in that said Survey No. 32/3 with regard to the well and that as the appellants had not used the said well water at all. By way of adverse possession, plaintiffs had become the owners with regard to the 2 annas and 8 pie share in the said well. The trial Court, after considering all the issues, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had become the owners with regard to the 2 annas and 8 pie share in the said well water by virtue of adverse possession. The trial Court also came to the findings that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession of the said suit property in preference to the persons having lawful title. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that mere change in mutation entry, does not confer any title upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.

4. It is an admitted position that when the changes in mutation entries were made from 1951 onwards, the present appellants were not given any notice whatsoever in that behalf and only in the year 1983 when the appellants came to know of the said illegal change in the said mutation entry, they moved the Revenue Authority and by mutation entry No. 666 dated 26th September, 1983, the appellants were able to incorporate their own names based on the aforesaid sale-deed dated 26th September, 1951, with regard to the 2 annas and 8 pie share in the said well. Since the appellants were not given any notice whatsoever with regard to the mutation entries, the respondents' contention that the appellants ought to have objected, does not arise at all. Unless and until proper notice is given to the appellants with regard to the proposed change in the mutation entry, there was no case for the appellants to raise any objection.

"But the real crux of this matter is as to what is the legal effect of the said Mutation Entry No. 2053 at Exhibit 45. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that because of the said mutation entry, Sonatai Joti Gharge got title to the property in question along with other properties. But that finding of the trial Court is not at all correct and proper. It is settled law that mutation entries or entries in the Record of Rights are made only for the fiscal purpose of recovering revenue. The said entries cannot amount to transfer of the title of the holder of the property in favour of the person in whose name the entries are made. Therefore, merely because Bali Pandurang Gharge, father of the present applicant No. 1, happened to make a Vardi application on 3rd of September, 1956 to delete his name and to enter the name of Sonatai Joti Gharge, that act on his part would not amount to transfer of the property in question and that giving of the Vardi application and certification of the said mutation entry would not create any title in favour of Sonatai Joti Gharge. Therefore, merely because the name of Sonatai Joti Gharge is entered in the Kabjedar column of the Record of Rights on account of the mutation entry at Exh. 45, it could not be said that in law Sonatai got title to the property in question."

10. From the above, it is explicitly clear that mere mutation entry or change in any mutation entry does not confer any title to any immovable property. This is a well settled law. Merely because the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were surreptitiously able to manage a change in mutation entry behind the back of the appellants, the same does not confer any right whatsoever to them. It is very important to note here that it is an admitted position that the appellants were given no notice whatsoever with regard to the aforesaid change in the mutation entry. Ultimately, in the year 1983 when the appellants came to know of the same, they got mutation entry changed back again in their own names, with regard to their share of 2 annas and 8 pie in the said well water. Similarly, the legal position that the co-owner or co-sharer of the property can never claim ownership by adverse possession of the other share. This is also a well settled law.