Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the subsequent purchaser-Respondent No.27-M/s.Heer Realtors, would submit the appeal filed by the Appellants set out only 9 lands whereas the mutation entries were effected in respect of several other properties also. He would further submit that admittedly, 32M certificate has been issued in favour of the Respondent No.1 and unless there is a challenge to the 32M certificate, revenue entries cannot be challenged. He submits that under Section 40 of the Tenancy Act, as the Respondent no.1 was cultivating the lands wp10972-23 the tenancy devolved upon him. He submits that the sisters of Gajanan were married and residing in their matrimonial house and as such, their contention that they were cultivating the land cannot be believed. Drawing attention of this Court to the Mutation Entry No.912 at Page 77, he would submit that the entry records that the sisters have voluntarily given statement about the release of their shares in favour of Gajanan and would urge that the entry is not on the basis of any release deed but on the basis of the voluntary statement given and as such no case of fraud can be argued. He would further contend that the order of the Additional Commissioner is legally unsustainable as the order is passed without the Respondent No.27 being impleaded as a party and if the impugned order is set aside, the effect would revive an illegal order of the Additional Commissioner, which is impermissible. He submits that the revenue entries have a presumptive value under Section 157 of MLRC. He submits that in the challenge to the revenue entries, no case of fraud can be pleaded which is required to be established in the Civil Court. He relies on the following decisions to support his submissions, as under: