Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a land possession dispute. The appeal was filed by the original defendants against the declaration of title and the injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs concerning the eastern portion of the disputed property. The court upheld  the plaintiffs' possession rights and rejected the appellants' claims of ownership and possession, which were based on agreements for sale, a possession receipt, and a purported Will.

The plaintiffs, comprising members of the same family, initiated a suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the eastern side of the disputed property. The plaintiffs claimed title through their predecessor, Dattatray, who had obtained ownership rights via a certificate under Section 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The plaintiffs contended that they had been in continuous and lawful possession of the property, and that any interference from the defendants was unwarranted.

The defendants argued that they had acquired possession of the suit property through two agreements for sale, executed in 1983 and 1991, respectively. They also relied on a possession receipt dated January 7, 1993, and a Will purportedly executed by Dattatray in 1992. They contended that these documents established their rights over the property and justified their possession claims.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the declaration and injunction as sought. The first appellate court upheld this decision, leading the defendants to file a second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was admitted to consider the substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and whether findings regarding possession were contrary to evidence on record.

The High Court considered whether the lower courts had correctly determined that the plaintiffs were in possession of the eastern portion of the suit property. The appellants argued that the plaintiffs had lost possession, citing admissions made by PW-1 during cross-examination that the defendants had stored heaps of rubble on the eastern side of the suit property.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court observed: "The admission given by PW-1 that after filing of the suit, the defendants had stored heaps of rubble on the eastern side of the suit property cannot be accepted as an admission on the part of the plaintiffs that defendants are in possession of the eastern side." The court held that mere unauthorized placement of rubble did not equate to lawful possession, nor did it indicate a transfer of possession in favor of the defendants.

The defendants further sought to invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, arguing that they were in possession pursuant to agreements for sale executed by Dattatray. The court rejected this argument, stating: "In the present case, none of the conditions contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act are fulfilled by the defendants." The court reasoned that possession in furtherance of a contract must be coupled with proof of payment of consideration and an intention to perform contractual obligations, both of which were lacking in this case.

The court also examined the validity of the possession receipt and the purported Will. It noted that the possession receipt did not conclusively establish that the defendants had taken lawful possession of the property. Regarding the Will, the court found that the defendants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its authenticity and execution, thereby rendering it unreliable as a basis for claiming title or possession.

The High Court further examined the statutory bar under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which restricts the transfer of agricultural land without prior approval. It noted that the agreements for sale relied upon by the defendants did not comply with these statutory provisions and, therefore, did not confer any legal rights upon them.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court ruled: "The findings recorded by both the courts on possession of the plaintiffs on the eastern side of the suit property amount to correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record." The injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession was upheld. The court held that the plaintiffs' title was well established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and no credible evidence was presented to warrant a deviation from the lower courts’ rulings.

Case Title: Ramesh Bagaram Mankane & Anr. v. Vasant Dattatray Pawar & Ors.
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 390 of 2011
Bench: Justice Gauri Godse

[Read/Download order]