(Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Vijay Dhondiram Patil and Others ___________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Nandkumar Namdev Thorat and Others _____________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos……………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22095-22096 of 2025), decided on March 17, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. Two suits for redemption of mortgage filed by the appellants herein were concerned with three items of property. Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 60 of 2011 with respect to two items of property and RCS No. 91 of 2015 with respect to one item of property, the descriptions of which are not relevant to these appeals.
3. The defendants claimed tenancy with respect to the said property and possession as on 01.04.1957, the ‘Tillers Day’ as per the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the Act of 1948). Issues were framed in RCS No. 60 of 2011 by Annexure P8 on 10.04.2012 and in RCS No. 91 of 2015 by Annexure P10 on 19.06.2019 which were with respect to the execution of the mortgage deed, repayment of the loan, the entitlement to redeem the property and recovery of possession.
4. The defendants filed application dated 05.12.2020 in RCS No. 91 of 2015 and application dated 07.12.2020 in RCS No. 60 of 2011 seeking reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) under Section 85A of the Act of 1948 for adjudication on the question of tenancy. The said applications were rejected by the Trial Court as per Annexures P14 and P15, challenged in appeals successfully resulting in the impugned judgment.
5. The High Court found that there are satisfactory and adequate pleadings regarding the tenancy with reference to mutation entries and the Record of Rights as also the circumstances in which the name of the predecessor of the defendants was deleted from the Records of Rights. Finding that Shri Maruti Thorat was the alleged tenant whose descendants are the present defendants, the issue of tenancy was referred for adjudication to the Competent Authority under the Act of 1948.
6. We heard Mr. Sachin Jaysing Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. It is submitted that after the deletion of the name of Shri Maruti Thorat from the revenue records, a mortgage was entered with the sons of Shri Maruti Thorat by which deed, possession was also given. Thus, the possession as on 01.04.1957 of Shri Maruti Thorat is not established and, in any way, the entries made in the revenue records stood deleted in the year 1960-1961, pursuant to the proceedings in ALT case No. 1 of 1960. The mutation records revealed the name of Shri Maruti Thorat was recorded only till 16.11.1954, far earlier to the ‘Tillers Day’ as per the Act of 1948.
7. Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents pointed out that the plea of tenancy was raised in the written statement itself and the rights conferred under the Act of 1948 as on the ‘Tillers Day’ does not stand extinguished merely for reason of execution of a mortgage deed.
8. Mutation entry is in the name of Shri Maruti Thorat, father of Dhondiram and Namdev who were alleged to have executed the mortgage deeds as mortgagee and possession taken, of the land itself. The descendants of Dhondiram and Namdev who are the present defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. Admittedly, Maruti Thorat’s name was removed from the Record of Rights as early as in the year 1960-1961 and there is nothing to indicate that the said person had challenged it nor did his legal representatives agitate the cause. The mortgage deeds which were produced in the suits were executed far later in the year 1985. The mortgage deeds clearly indicate that Dhondiram and Namdev came into possession of the properties by reason of the said deeds, the mortgage having been effected by the original plaintiff viz. Dhondiram Ananda Patil, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein.
9. In fact, in the written statement filed on 06.06.2011 in RCS No. 60 of 2011 while asserting the tenancy rights of Maruti Thorat, it is also admitted that the entry in the revenue records with respect to his tenancy and the conferment of rights as per the Act of 1948 was illegally deleted in the year 1961. Despite being aware of the deletion which is styled as illegal, no steps were taken by the alleged original tenant or his legal representatives to bring forth a correction. There is nothing to show the possession of the original tenant as on 01.04.1957 or that of his legal representatives after that till 1985. The recitals in the mortgage deed specifically speak of possession having been handed over by the mortgagor, the original plaintiff, the executor of the deed to the mortgagees, the sons of Maruti Thorat, the original defendants, in lieu of the loan availed by the former. The recital in the deed puts to peril the very claim of tenancy raised on the predecessor in interest of the original defendants.
10. We also have to notice that despite Annexure P8 in RCS No. 60 of 2011; issues raised on 10.04.2012, the defendants sought reference only on 07.12.2020. Insofar as RCS No. 91 of 2015 the issues were framed on 19.06.2019 against which an application was filed on 05.12.2020. We have also looked at Annexures P14 and P15 orders which faulted the lethargy of the defendants in seeking to raise the issue of tenancy and the rights conferred under the Act of 1948. The order also finds the claim of tenancy to be not substantiated by any documents. The bald statement made of tenancy of the predecessor in interest when the revenue records were to the contrary and the possession as revealed from the admitted mortgage deeds, having commenced only from the execution of the said deeds, puts paid the claim of tenancy raised by the defendants.
11. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court. The order of the High Court stands set aside and the orders of the Trial Court stand restored. The trial shall proceed, if not already concluded with the issues framed as per Annexures P8 and P10 respectively in RCS No. 60 of 2011 and RCS No. 91 of 2015, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, Sangli, Maharashtra. We have not observed on the merits of the suit either way, except on the issue of tenancy raised, which is found to be not valid.
12. The appeals stand allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
