Bombay High Court

TRIMBAK SITARAM ALIAS SITYA MUNESHWARversusVASANT UNDRAJI ALIAS UNDRYA MUNESHWAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court's orders were correct and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Trimbak Sitaram, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging two orders of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahur, which had rejected his applications for summons to revenue officers and for production of original land records relating to mutation entries 212, 222 and 853. The petitioner argued that the trial court should have examined the revenue officers because the mutation entries were central to the issue of ownership in his civil suit. The trial court held that the mutation entries were public documents already exhibited, that they are fiscal in nature and do not confer ownership, and that any challenge to them must be made under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The High Court agreed with the trial court, finding no error in its reasoning or jurisdiction, and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner may approach the trial court for a decision on the merits of his civil suit within a prescribed time.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue summons to revenue officers and to produce original mutation records.
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of mutation entries or whether such matters are exclusively remedial under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Whether the orders of the trial court can be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

Subjects

Article 227
mutation entries
land revenue
civil suit jurisdiction
public documents
summons
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
declaration of ownership

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34359

901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2270 OF 2024

Trimbak Sitaram Alias Sitya Muneshwar
VERSUS
Vasant Undraji Alias Undrya Muneshwar And Others
…
• Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. Vikrant P. Raje, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
…
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 06.08.2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned

Advocate for Respondent No.3.

2. Impugned in this writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India are the orders dated 08.12.2023 and

16.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Mahur, District Nanded below Exhibits 163 and 164,

respectively, in Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 2008.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the

original defendants.

4. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings,

recasted/framed the issues below Exhibit 83, and Issue No.6

Jhs/ 1/6
901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

reads that, whether Mutation Entry Nos.212, 222 and 853 are

null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed

an application below Exhibit 163 on 08.12.2023 seeking

issuance of witness summons to the then Talathi and Circle

Officer, who had effected and certified the said mutation entries.

The said application came to be rejected by the order dated

08.12.2023, observing that the mutation entries were already

exhibited, being public documents, and therefore there was no

necessity to examine the concerned witnesses in support thereof.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application below Exhibit

164 seeking issuance of summons to the concerned Revenue

Authorities to produce the original record relating to the Record

of Rights and Mutation Entries of the suit land from the year

1965 onwards. The said application also came to be rejected by

the impugned order dated 16.12.2023.

6. It is submitted that, once a specific issue has been framed

by the Trial Court, both the applications ought to have been

allowed. No prejudice would have caused to the defendants if

the concerned Revenue Authorities had been summoned. It is

further submitted that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to

Jhs/ 2/6
901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

adjudicate upon the validity of the mutation entries is not

barred. It is submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the

impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

7. It is submitted by learned advocate for Respondent No. 3

that, the revenue entries were already available on record and

they were exhibited by the learned Civil Court. Being the public

documents, they can be read in the evidence and therefore the

learned Civil Court has rightly rejected both the applications,

and the petition be dismissed.

8. The prayers on record goes to show that, the civil suit is

filed with the following prayers -

“(A)It may kindly be declared that the plff. is the owner of the suit
property. It may kindly be declared that the sale deed bearing
No.899 dated 2-4-70 executed in favour of Onkar is null and void
and cannot be acted upon.
(B) The Revenue mutation Entry No. 212 and 222 may kindly be
declared to be null and void and not to be binding upon the plff.
(C) Defendants be directed to deliver the actual physical possession of
the suit land described in plaint para no.1 to the plff.
(D) Enquiry into mesne profits to be ordered from the date of institution
of the suit till actual receipt of the possession of the suit land.
(E) Any other just and equitable relief in the interests of justice may
kindly be passed.
(F) The costs of the suit may kindly be saddled on the defendants.

Jhs/ 3/6
901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

(G) The judgment and decree in R.C.S. No. 19/83 dated 31-12-84 be
declared that it is nulity under law and not binding upon the
plaintiff.
(H) The Revenue Mutation Entry No. 853 be declared to be null and
void and not to be binding upon the plaintiff.
(I) The alleged will deed dated 22/1/2010 declared to be null and void
and not to be binding upon plaintiff.”

9. The pleadings in the plaint goes to show that the said

mutation entry No. 212 and 222 against which the declaration is

sought that were made on the basis of the partition deed dated

01.04.1964. The pleadings in the plaint further goes to show

that, there was one Regular Civil Suit No.19 of 1983. The said

Regular Civil Suit was admittedly dismissed by judgment and

order dated 31.12.1984. A copy of the said judgment was made

available for perusal across the Bar by learned Advocate for the

petitioner. It goes to show that the said civil suit was filed by

Seetya, who was the father of the plaintiff – Trimbak Sitaram @

Sitya Muneshwar in the present suit, and the present Defendant

No.1 – Vasant S/o Undraji @ Undrya Muneshwar was son of

Defendant No.1 – Undrya in the said previous civil suit. The suit

land was purchased by Defendant No.2 – Ratnakalabai from

Namdeo, who was Defendant No.2 in the said previous suit. The

Jhs/ 4/6
901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

pleadings in the plaint of the present suit further goes to show

that Issue No.2 framed in the said earlier suit was as follows :-

“Does he further prove that the defendants No. 1 and 2 with
collusion of Revenue Officers get the name of the defendant
No. 2 as a owner against the suit field?”

10. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned order, observed

that, the said revenue entries were public documents and were

already exhibited on record and, therefore, there was no need to

examine the relevant Revenue Officers. The learned Trial Court

further observed that, the validity of the mutation entries can be

subjected to challenge under the provisions of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, which provides for the remedy of appeal.

The learned Trial Court also observed that, the mutation entries

are for fiscal purposes and do not confer any right of ownership

in the suit land. It is undisputed that, the present civil suit, in

which the said exhibits were filed and upon which the impugned

orders came to be passed, is for a declaration that the plaintiff is

the owner of the suit property and further for a declaration that

the sale deed in favour of Omkar is null and void and the said

mutation entries are not binding on the plaintiff.

Jhs/ 5/6
901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024

11. In the backdrop of the above factual aspects of the matter,

no fault can be found with the impugned orders. Hence, the

following order :-

ORDER

A) The writ petition is dismissed.

B) The parties would be at liberty to request the learned Trial

Court to decide the suit within a prescribed time limit. If

such request is made, the same be considered by keeping

in view all the relevant aspects.

( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

Jhs/ 6/6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…