Dismissed¶¶26

Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil v. Prashant Tanaji Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jun 2025WP/3606/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation entry does not determine title or substantive right; mutation entries require documentary evidence under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966; Section 257 MLRC revisional order dated 13.09.2019 upheld and confirmed; Partition Suit No.47/2001 decree and pending appeal; granddaughter of deceased 1/3rd sharer Krushnabai claiming ancestral property; proper remedy is civil suit, not challenge to mutation entry; writ petition dismissed; right to challenge alleged sale deed kept open; Bombay High Court, June 09, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; however, the petitioner's right to agitate her claim in the Civil Court and all questions regarding her right to challenge the alleged sale deed were kept expressly open. ¶¶26

Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil vs Prashant Tanaji Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; however, the petitioner's right to agitate her claim in the Civil Court and all questions regarding her right to challenge the alleged sale deed were kept expressly open.

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether mutation entries determine title or the substantive right, title and interest of a party in property. +2 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

Mutation entries do not determine title to property.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

A mutation entry does not determine the substantive right, title and interest of the party, nor ownership of their substantive right in the property.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Mutation entries must be backed by appropriate documentary evidence on the basis of which they are created and allowed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.ratio¶¶20
A petitioner who has asserted a substantive right in the property is free to approach the appropriate Civil Court having original civil jurisdiction rather than challenge the mutation entry and seek her entitlement.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Milind N. Jadhav, J.) dismissed a writ petition by Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil, granddaughter of Smt. Krushnabai — who had inherited a 1/3rd share in the suit property under the judgment in Partition Suit No.47/2001 and died during pendency of the appeal against the decree — challenging a mutation entry. The Court held that mutation entries do not determine title, nor the substantive right, title and interest of a party in property, and must be backed by appropriate documentary evidence under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; a party asserting a substantive right must approach the appropriate Civil Court having original civil jurisdiction. The State's revisional order dated 13.09.2019 under Section 257 of the MLRC, 1966 (which also dealt with delay) was upheld and confirmed without adverting to the petitioner's rights on merits. The petitioner's right to agitate in the Civil Court and all questions regarding her right to challenge the alleged sale deed were kept expressly open.

¶1

29_WP_3606_2024.docx

¶2

Prasad Rajput

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2024

¶6

Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Prashant Tanaji Patil and Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Avesh A. Ghadge, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Umesh Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for State.

¶12

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 09, 2025

¶13

P. C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

¶15

Pawar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Bhadang, learned AGP for Respondent – State.

¶16

2. Parties before me are in dispute with respect to partition. The petitioner before me claims to be the granddaughter of one Smt. Krushnabai who has inherited 1/3^rd share in the suit property by virtue of Court’s order/judgment in Partition Suit bearing No.47/2001. However, it is seen that during pendency of the appeal against decree passed in the aforesaid suit, Smt. Krushnabai expired and her share devolved upon her legal heirs one of whom happens to be father of the present petitioner. Petitioner before me is the granddaughter of Smt.

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

29_WP_3606_2024.docx

¶19

Krushnabai and she asserts her right, title and entitlement in the suit property rather in the share coming to the entitlement of Smt. Krushnabai as her legal heir since she claims the said property to be ancestral property. If that be the case, Petitioner who has asserted her substantive right is free to approach the appropriate Civil Court having appropriate civil jurisdiction rather challenge the mutation entry and seek her entitlement. Mutation entries do not determine title to property. Further it is seen that Petitioner’s father is alive, who is the son and legal heir of deceased Krushnabai.

¶20

3. The aforesaid facts are prima facie undisputed. In any event mutation entry does not determine substantive right, title and interest of the party neither ownership of their substantive right in the property. Mutation entries have to be backed by appropriate documentary evidence on the basis of which they are created and allowed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘ MLRC ’).

¶21

4. In that view of the matter, Petitioner before me is free to agitate her substantive right/share in the subject property in an appropriate Civil Court having original civil jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the State in revision under Section 257 of the MLRC, 1966 apart from the above, also considers the issue of delay. However without adverting to the rights

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

29_WP_3606_2024.docx

¶24

of the Petitioner on merits, in view of the aforesaid observations and findings, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the order dated 13.09.2019 considering that it is a well reasoned order. The said order is upheld and confirmed.

¶25

5. Needless to state that right of Petitioner is kept open if she so chooses to agitate the same in the Civil Court strictly in accordance with law. All questions with respect to Petitioner’s right to challenge the alleged sale deed is also kept expressly open.

¶26

6. Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

P.R. Rajput

¶28

3 of 3

Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil v. Prashant Tanaji Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalpana Macchindra Shinde @ Kalpana Nanasaheb Patil v. Prashant Tanaji Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Armed Forces Medical College Pune vs Employees Providednt Fund Organisation

Santosh Mahatin Lalsingh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Santosh Mahatin Lalsingh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Afzal Sattar Oomerbhoy vs Mazid Ahmedbhai Oomerbhoy

Bayjool Desai vs Late Mr Jamnadas Velji Thakkar Deceased

Crystal Feroze Devitre vs Roshen Khoorshed Kuka (Deceased)