Bombay High Court
SAVITRI YALLAPPA KAMBLEversusRAMESH MAHADEV SURYAWANSHI AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that the lower courts did not err in relying on the sale deed and mutation entry, and therefore the injunction and the findings of fact were upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Savitri Yallappa Kamble, challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts that granted an injunction against her, alleging that the courts erred in jurisdiction by relying solely on a sale deed executed by her deceased husband, who allegedly lacked authority and ownership of the land. She contended that the signatures on the deed were disputed and that a mutation entry could not be conclusive proof of title. The respondents filed a suit for injunction, which was initially granted on interim grounds and later upheld by the appellate court, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition. The High Court examined the reliance on the 4 October 2024 sale deed and mutation entry No. 893, noting that the petitioner had not contested the earlier 1986 deed or produced evidence of possession. Finding no perversity or illegality in the lower courts' findings, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting an injunction in a property dispute involving a contested sale deed?
- Whether reliance on a sale deed executed by a deceased spouse, without proof of authority, constitutes an error of jurisdiction.
- Whether a mutation entry can be considered conclusive evidence of title for the purpose of an injunction.
Subjects
- injunction
- sale deed
- jurisdiction
- mutation entry
- property dispute
- court findings
Judgment
49-WP-4241-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2026
Savitri Yallappa Kamble ...Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh Mahadev Suryawanshi And Ors. ...Respondents
…..
Adv. Dheeraj Patil (through V.C.),Advocate for Petitioner.
…..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Dheeraj Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petition is directed against concurrent finding of facts
recorded by Courts below granting injunction against the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that both Courts below
committed error of jurisdiction in solely relying upon the Sale Deed
executed by husband of the petitioner on 04.10.2024. It is submitted
that husband had no authority and he was not owner of the suit land.
The signatures on the Sale Deed are also disputed. It is submitted that
mutation entry cannot be said to be conclusive proof.
4. The respondent No.1 has filed RCS No.71 of 2025 for injunction
ZIP 1 of 2
49-WP-4241-2026 (C).doc
along with application for interim injunction. After contest, the
application Exhibit - 5 was allowed on 07.01.2026. Being aggrieved,
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.26 of 2026 was preferred. It was
dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2026.
5. Both Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts
giving weightage to the Sale Deed dated 04.10.2024 and Mutation
Entry No.893. The petitioner did not challenge the Sale Deed executed
by her late husband on 22.10.1986 by independent proceedings or by
way of counter claim. No material is produced on record to indicate the
possession of the petitioner. I do not find any perversity or illegality in
the findings recorded by Courts below. No interference is called for. The
petition stands dismissed.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
ZIP 2 of 2
Checking your session…