Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NOs. 821-825 OF 2009

Vasant Balu Patil & Ors.         ... Appellant (s)

Versus

Mohan Hirachand Shah & Ors.                ...    Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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 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.  

2. Insofar as recital of the relevant facts is concerned it will  

suffice  to  notice  that  the  plaintiffs’  suits  were  initially  for

Page 2

2

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 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  

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  

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  

1916 when the suit land measuring 14.5 acres was recorded  

in  the  name  of  one  Amarsi  Gujjar,  the  grandfather  of  the

Page 3

3

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 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  

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 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.

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

Page 4

4

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  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 extremely  

doubtful in view of 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 a writ petition which was heard  

and decided along with the second appeal  in question.  The  

order passed by the 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  

disagreed  with  the  learned  trial  court  and  overturned  the

Page 5

5

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  

appellate  court  and  the  High  Court  are  wholly  untenable  

requiring the interference of this Court in the exercise of its  

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  

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.  

8. At the outset, Shri Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the  

appellants  has  contended  that  against  the  findings  of  the  

revisional  authority in the revenue 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

Page 6

6

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 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 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 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 suit land which fact  

would  go  to  show that  the  suit  land  was  not  the  personal

Page 7

7

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  

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  

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  the  suits  prayed for  addition  of  the  relief  of  

declaration of title.  The said amendment was allowed by the  

learned trial court on 16.07.1995. The amended relief sought  

and granted, therefore, is clearly barred under the provisions  

of the Limitation Act, it is urged.        

10. Finally,  it  is  contended  that  though  voluminous  

documents  were  introduced  in  evidence  on  behalf  of  the

Page 8

8

plaintiffs to prove their title, none of the exhibited documents  

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.  

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  

decided in the  revenue proceedings holding  the same to  be  

highly  suspicious  in  view  of  the  interpolations  and  the  

overwritings  therein.  The  said  facts  and  findings  recorded  

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  plaintiffs  to  ownership  is  established  and  the  

substratum of  the defendants’  claim, including the claim of

Page 9

9

title on the basis of khata No.47 and payment of revenue in  

respect of the land covered by the said khata No. 47 (allegedly  

the suit land) will 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 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 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 Shenoy1.

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  1 2001 (8) SCC 561.

Page 10

10

unimpressed by the arguments and contentions advanced on  

behalf of the appellants that the title of the plaintiffs 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  

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,  214B.  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 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, 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 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  

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

Page 11

11

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 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  

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 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 regard to limitation has to be decided in favour of  the  

plaintiffs.  

13. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the  

case of the appellants as laid before us on the grounds and

Page 12

12

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.  

...……..……......................J.                                          (RANJAN GOGOI)

….……..…….....................J.                                        (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER  9, 2015.