Bombay High Court on Exclusive Ownership under Bombay Tenancy Act: Civil Suit for Partition Not Maintainable.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court held that once ownership of agricultural land is conferred under Sections 32G and 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, such ownership becomes exclusive and cannot be reopened through a civil suit for partition. The Court ruled that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Sections 85 and 85-A of the Act, and the claim was also barred by limitation. Consequently, the Second Appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the judgments of the Trial Court and the District Court were set aside.

Background:

• The dispute pertained to agricultural lands situated in Uran, Raigad, Maharashtra (Survey Nos. 21, 22, and 29/1).

• The original tenant, Ramji Patil, died in 1949, and his wife Yenibai/Venibai was recorded as the protected tenant in 1952.

• Around 1957, Krishnabai (Appellant) was recorded as the kul (tenant), and in 1961, she acquired ownership through proceedings under Sections 32G and 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, receiving a Sale Certificate in her name.

• In 2002, Savitribai (Respondent), her sister, filed a civil suit for partition, claiming the land was joint family property.

• The Trial Court decreed partition, and the District Court dismissed Krishnabai’s appeal. Hence, the present Second Appeal was filed before the High Court.

Court’s Observations:

• The ownership was validly conferred upon Krishnabai in 1961 through a proper 32G and 32M process, and the Sale Certificate (Exhibit 38) conclusively established her title.

• There was no evidence that Krishnabai acted as a representative of the family or that the land was cultivated jointly.

• The respondents never challenged the 32G and 32M proceedings, the mutation entry, or the sale certificate for more than four decades, making their claim hopelessly delayed.

• The decision relied upon by the respondents, Ramakant Ganesh Naik v. Anusaya Shantaram Naik (2024 (3) Mh.L.J. 389), was found inapplicable, as in that case there was proof of joint cultivation, unlike here.

• The High Court emphasized that Sections 85 and 85-A of the Tenancy Act bar civil courts from reopening tenancy issues, which must be adjudicated exclusively by revenue authorities.

• The suit, filed in 2002, was therefore barred by limitation and beyond civil court jurisdiction.

Held:

• Ownership of the disputed land vested exclusively in the appellant, Krishnabai, in 1961 under Section 32M.

• The land ceased to be joint family property thereafter.

• The civil suit for partition was not maintainable due to statutory bar and delay.

• Second Appeal allowed — Judgments of the Trial Court and District Court set aside.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 32G & 32M, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Conferment of ownership on tenants and issuance of Sale Certificate.

• Sections 85 & 85-A, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Bar of Civil Court’s jurisdiction in tenancy matters.

• Article 65 & Article 110, Limitation Act, 1963 – Limitation for suits for possession and partition.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:48235

Case: Ajay Krishnabai Babya Navale v. Savitri Shankar Gharat (since deceased through LRs.) & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025

Case Type: Second Appeal No. 394 of 2017