Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff, Shamkalabai (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1985. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1980 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Bhikamsing, regarding agricultural land bearing Sy. No.114 admeasuring 7 acres and one-half share in the water of a well situated therein. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased by her from funds given by her father under a registered sale deed dated 19-1-1975. She alleged that the defendant, her brother-in-law, was interfering with her possession. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, granting a permanent injunction. The defendant appealed, and the first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the proof of the registered sale deed and the relevance of mutation entries. The court noted that the plaintiff had examined the attesting witness to the sale deed, thereby proving it under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The first appellate court's finding that the deed was not proved was perverse. Additionally, the mutation entries in the revenue records, made under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, showed the plaintiff's possession and were relevant. The first appellate court had ignored these entries. The High Court held that the first appellate court's judgment was unsustainable and allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's decree of permanent injunction.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession - Registered Sale Deed - The plaintiff sought permanent injunction based on a registered sale deed dated 19-1-1975 and mutation entries in revenue records showing her possession. The trial court granted injunction, but the first appellate court reversed it. The High Court held that the first appellate court failed to consider the registered sale deed and mutation entries, which are prima facie evidence of title and possession. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decree was restored. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Registered Document - Proof - The registered sale deed was proved by examining the attesting witness, satisfying Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The first appellate court's finding that the deed was not proved was perverse and set aside. (Paras 5-7) C) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 135 - Mutation Entries - Relevance - Mutation entries in revenue records are relevant to show possession and are not merely fiscal entries. The first appellate court erred in ignoring them. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree of permanent injunction by ignoring the registered sale deed and revenue records showing possession of the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court (Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1985) are set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court (Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1980) granting permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff are restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Possession follows title
- Registered sale deed is prima facie evidence of title
- Mutation entries are relevant for possession
- First appellate court must not ignore documentary evidence
- Permanent injunction can be granted based on possession
