Dismissed¶34

Raghunath Kachru Kolhe v. Bhilu Shankar Jadhav

Bombay HC6 May 2026SA/229/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed; substantial question of law absent; mutation entries do not make or unmake title; Mutation Entry No. 409; Gat No. 383; RCS No. 21 of 2019; no recognised mode of transfer inter vivos; permissive possession; adverse possession not pleaded in counter claim; District Judge appeal dismissed; Interim Application No. 3372 of 2026 disposed; Bombay High Court; Jamadar, J.; Walawalkar for Appellant.

What did the court decide?

The claim of Defendant No.1 rests entirely on Mutation Entry No. 409; there is no other instrument, nor does Defendant No.1 claim transfer by any recognised mode of transfer of property inter vivos. ¶23

Raghunath Kachru Kolhe vs Bhilu Shankar Jadhav — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. +3 more

¶32

Court's answer

No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the Second Appeal.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The claim of Defendant No.1 rests entirely on Mutation Entry No. 409; there is no other instrument, nor does Defendant No.1 claim transfer by any recognised mode of transfer of property inter vivos.

¶23

Key takeaways

Mutation entries do not make or unmake title.ratio¶23
Even if Defendant No.1's case that the father of the Plaintiff gave the suit land to Defendant No.1 is taken at par, title would continue to vest in the father of the Plaintiff during his lifetime and, after his demise, in the Plaintiff.ratio¶25
At the highest, the claim of possession of Defendant No.1 remained permissive, and the learned District Judge rightly concluded that Defendant No.1 was in permissive possession of the suit land.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.), by oral order dated 6th May 2026, dismissed Second Appeal No. 229 of 2026 (Raghunath Kachru Kolhe v. Bhilu Shankar Jadhav) and consequently disposed of Interim Application No. 3372 of 2026. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 15th April 2025 of the learned District Judge dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 18th June 2025 in RCS No. 21 of 2019, which declared Mutation Entry No. 409 mutating Defendant No.1's name to agricultural land bearing Gat No.383 null and void and directed Defendant No.1 to hand over possession to the Plaintiff. The Court held: mutation entries do not make or unmake title; Defendant No.1's claim rested entirely on Mutation Entry No. 409 with no other instrument and no recognised mode of transfer inter vivos; even if the Plaintiff's father had given the suit land, title would vest in the father during his lifetime and thereafter in the Plaintiff; Defendant No.1's possession was permissive, and the counter claim nowhere pleaded perfection of title by adverse possession; accordingly, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose.

¶1

10-SA-229-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2026

¶5

Raghunath Kachru Kolhe Versus

Bhilu Shankar Jadhav

..Appellant

…Respondent

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3372 OF 2026

¶11

¶12

SECOND APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2026

¶13

Mr. Vikram Walawalkar, with Neha Parte, Pratik Sabrad for the Appellant.

¶14

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 6^th MAY 2026

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶17

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.05.07 12:34:30 +0530

¶18

The challenge in this Appeal is to a judgment and decree dated 15^th April 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appellant against a judgment and decree dated 18^th June 2025 passed in RCS No. 21 of 2019 by the Trial Court thereby declaring that the Mutation Entry No. 409 mutating the name of

¶19

Defendant No.1 to the agricultural land bearing Gat No.383 was null and void, and directing Defendant No.1 to handover the possession of the said land to the Plaintiff, came to be dismissed.

¶20

ARS 1/3

¶21

10-SA-229-2026.DOC

¶22

Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the learned District Judge despite recording a finding that the Trial Court had come to a wrong conclusion that Defendant No.1 had committed encroachment over the suit land and that the claim of the Plaintiff that in the year 2007, Defendant No.1 had dig a well in the suit land was unsustainable, dismissed the appeal. Having recorded the said findings, the learned District Judge ought to have dismissed the suit of the Respondent.

¶23

The claim of the Defendant No.1 rests entirely on Mutation Entry No. 409 by which the suit land was purportedly transferred by the father of the Plaintiff. There is no other instrument. Nor the Defendant No. 1 claims that the suit land came to be transferred to Defendant No.1 by any of the recognized modes of transfer of the property inter vivos. It is trite, mutation entries do not make or unmake title.

¶24

Even if the case of Defendant No.1 that the father of the Plaintiff

¶25

had given the suit land to Defendant No.1, is taken at par, yet, the title would continue to vest in the father of the Plaintiff, during his lifetime, and after his demise, in the Plaintiff.

¶26