Sale of property after a government auction but before its confirmation does not supersede the auction vesting.

The Appellant (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit for a declaration of ownership and an injunction regarding agricultural land at Gat No. 952 (comprising former Survey Nos. 178/2A and 178/2B).

The Plaintiff claimed title through his grandfather, Krishna, based on a 1938 joint sale deed [Exh. 65] and a 1953 sale deed [Exh. 66].

The Defendant (Original Respondent) contended that in a 1941 partition, the land fell to his ancestor Jijaba; though portions were sold to Krishna, they were repurchased by the Defendant’s grandfather, Mahadu, in 1949.

Due to a default on a 'Tagai' (government) loan, the land was auctioned and vested in the Government in 1954.

In 1992, the revenue authorities passed a regrant/restoration order in favor of the Defendant.

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding the Plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership and possession.

1. Whether, in view of the sale deeds at Exhibits 65 and 66, the findings given by the Courts below regarding the title and possession were perverse or correct?

2. Whether the subsequent orders passed by revenue authorities during the pendency of the appeal could be admitted as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC?

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the scope of second appeals on substantial questions of law.

It relied on the principle that revenue entries do not confer title but only record possession for fiscal purposes, whereas registered sale deeds are primary evidence of title.

The Court applied Section 220 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) concerning the restoration of forfeited land.

Furthermore, it strictly adhered to the precedent in Shivaji Balaram Haibatti v. Avinash Maruthi Pawar (2018), which mandates that findings recorded dehors the pleadings are without jurisdiction.

The Court analyzed the chain of title and found that while Exhibit 65 was a joint purchase, the 1941 partition (evidenced by ME No. 6606) allotted the land to the Defendant’s ancestor, who then sold only Survey No. 178/2A to the Plaintiff’s grandfather.

The Plaintiff’s claim to the entire Gat No. 952 failed because there were no pleadings or evidence showing a source of title for Survey No. 178/2B.

Regarding the 1953 sale deed (Exh. 66), the Court noted it was executed after the government auction process had commenced, complicating the claim of absolute title.

The Court rejected the Interim Application for additional evidence, reasoning that even if revenue orders favored the Plaintiff, they could not cure the lack of civil pleadings regarding the specific survey number (178/2B) or the vesting of the land in the government.

The Court concluded that the lower courts' dismissal was not perverse as the Plaintiff failed to establish a continuous, exclusive title to the whole suit property.

It held that the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to prove absolute ownership of the entire suit property (Gat No. 952) and thus was not entitled to the declaration or injunction sought.

However, the Court clarified that its findings on the distinct titles of Survey No. 178/2A and 178/2B (derived from Krishna and Jijaba respectively) allow the parties the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for partition or separate possession in the appropriate forum.

Typical orders of dismissal were upheld subject to these clarifications.