Statutory Ownership Under Tenancy Law Overrides Ancestral Claims: Bombay High Court Rules Civil Court Lacked Jurisdiction in Partition Dispute

“Once title is perfected under Section 32M, the property ceases to be part of the predecessor’s estate” —  Bombay High Court held that a statutory purchase under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BT&AL Act) by a protected tenant cannot later be challenged as ancestral property. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, presiding over the civil appellate jurisdiction, allowed the Second Appeal No. 394 of 2017, stating that civil courts have no authority to override final statutory vesting of land effected through valid tenancy proceedings.

In doing so, the Court dismissed a 2002 partition suit filed by Savitribai, who claimed the land as joint family property, and upheld the exclusive title of her sister Krishnabai, who had legally acquired the land as a tenant in 1961 under Section 32M.

“Civil Court Cannot Reopen Final Orders Passed Under Tenancy Act”: Court Slams Concurrent Findings

The Court strongly condemned the approach of the trial and first appellate courts, which had decreed in favour of the plaintiff despite the clear statutory framework. Justice Jadhav remarked, “Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors”, ruling that the civil court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction over a matter that had been conclusively settled by tenancy authorities decades ago.

The High Court held that the bar under Sections 85 and 85-A of the BT&AL Act was squarely applicable, and the earlier courts failed to recognise that “Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders.”

The dispute arose over agricultural lands in Vindhane village, Raigad, previously held by the parties’ father Ramji Patil, who died in 1949. His widow Yenibai was recorded as tenant in 1952. However, in 1957, the name of daughter Krishnabai was mutated as protected tenant. In 1961, she was granted a sale certificate under Section 32M following a formal enquiry under Section 32G, including public notices and hearing of objections.

Despite this, Savitribai, her sister, filed a civil suit in 2002, claiming a share in the property as co-heir, stating that the land belonged to their parents and was part of the joint family property.

The trial court decreed the suit in 2006. The first appellate court affirmed it in 2017. Krishnabai challenged both in second appeal before the High Court.

Statutory Purchase Recognised as Absolute Ownership — “No Evidence of Joint Cultivation”

The core legal issue was whether Krishnabai’s purchase in 1961 under tenancy law extinguished the joint family nature of the property, and whether the partition suit filed after 41 years was barred by limitation.

The High Court held that the issuance of the Section 32M sale certificate conferred full ownership, stating, “Civil Court cannot disregard statutory proceedings and revisit concluded findings under the BT&AL Act.”

Justice Jadhav emphasized that there was “no evidence led by the plaintiff” to prove that Krishnabai had acquired the land on behalf of the family, nor was there any proof of joint cultivation or sharing of produce.

Referring to Ramakant Ganesh Naik v. Anusaya Shantaram Naik, the Court said, “Reliance on the decision… is prima facie misplaced rather misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” That precedent involved express admissions by the protected tenant and landlord that the land was cultivated jointly, unlike the present case.

“Suit Barred By 41-Year Delay; Plaintiff Slept Over Rights” — Court Applies Limitation Strictly

Savitribai’s attempt to explain her delay by claiming she proposed partition only two years before filing the suit was dismissed as baseless. The Court held, “The stoic silence of the plaintiff from 1957 to 2002 speaks volumes… there is not a thread of evidence produced by her.”

The Court found that no objections were raised to the mutation entries, sale certificate, or public notices, and observed that her own witness admitted there was no material to prove joint possession or family cultivation.

Rejecting her reliance on Article 110 of the Limitation Act, the Court held that Articles 65-B and 110 could not come to her aid, since Krishnabai’s title had already vested by operation of law in 1961.

Justice Jadhav decisively held that the property stood vested in Krishnabai individually by virtue of the Section 32M sale certificate and that “mutation entries and statutory proceedings could not be undone after four decades.”

He observed, “What is the significance of 32G Order and 32M Certificate is evident from the facts and circumstances of each case… unless there is evidence to justify representative tenancy, individual ownership must be presumed.”

Criticising the lower courts for not considering the jurisdictional bar and limitation issue, the Court concluded:

“Both the judgments passed by the courts below clearly suffer from legal infirmity.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017, dismissed the 2002 partition suit, and restored exclusive ownership in favour of Krishnabai.

“Second Appeal is allowed. Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 is dismissed. Civil courts cannot reopen questions conclusively settled under tenancy law.”

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025