In a packed courtroom on Wednesday afternoon, the Bombay High Court overturned two earlier decisions that had granted a share in agricultural land to a woman who filed her claim decades after statutory tenancy proceedings had concluded. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, speaking in a firm but steady tone, said the case presented “clear gaps in evidence” and that reopening settled tenancy rights after four decades would be legally impermissible.
The matter quietly simmering since the 1950s finally reached closure as the Court dismissed the 2002 partition suit filed by Savitribai, who had sought a share in farmland at Vindhane village, Uran. Her sister, Krishnabai, had challenged the earlier rulings that favoured Savitribai.
Background
The land in question survey numbers 21, 22, and 29/1 originally belonged to a landlord but was cultivated by the sisters’ father, the late Ramji Patil. After his death in 1949, their mother Yenibai was recorded as the protected tenant. However, things shifted in 1957, when Krishnabai’s name appeared in the revenue entries as the new “kul,” meaning she was recognised as the protected tenant.
This change triggered statutory purchase proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In 1961, the Agricultural Land Tribunal issued a purchase certificate under Section 32M in favour of Krishnabai, allowing her to buy the land by paying installments payments that, the court noted, she and her husband made diligently over several years.
Still, decades later in 2002, Savitribai filed a suit demanding partition, claiming the property was ancestral and always belonged jointly to the family. The trial court and first appellate court agreed with her. But Krishnabai wasn’t ready to surrender land she had cultivated for more than half a century.
Court's Observations
Justice Jadhav spent considerable time dissecting the factual matrix, often pausing to flip through the tattered paper-book placed before him. His analysis turned heavily on the lack of evidence produced by Savitribai.
“There is not an iota of evidence,” the bench observed, “to show that the plaintiff ever cultivated the land or had any nexus with it after 1950.”
Several points stood out during the hearing:
1. Effect of the 32G and 32M Proceedings
The Court emphasised that the statutory purchase order and sale certificate issued after public notice and hearing carried significant legal weight.
Justice Jadhav noted:
“Once the certificate under Section 32M was issued in favour of the appellant in 1961, the title stood perfected. Such statutory acts cannot be casually brushed aside.”
2. No Evidence of Joint Family Cultivation
While Savitribai argued that the purchase by Krishnabai was “representative,” the Court found this entirely unsupported.
The judge remarked that in similar cases, courts had only treated tenancy as joint family property when both the tenant and landlord had admitted joint cultivation.
“Here, no such admission exists. In fact, the plaintiff’s own witness conceded that no documents exist to show joint cultivation,” the Court said.
3. Silence for 40 Years
The Court took a dim view of the plaintiff’s long silence.
Calling it a stoic silence, the bench said:
“A challenge cannot suddenly spring up in 2002 when the factual basis dates back to 1957–61. Such delay is fatal.”
4. Limitation and Maintainability
The Court held that the plaintiff could not rely on vague assertions that she had demanded partition two years before filing the suit. Without evidence, these claims could not defeat the statutory title already vested in Krishnabai.
Decision
After nearly an hour of detailed reasoning, Justice Jadhav concluded that both lower courts had ignored crucial statutory documents and misapplied principles relating to tenancy and succession.
The Court ordered:
- The 2006 trial court decree and the 2017 appellate court judgment are quashed and set aside.
- Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 is dismissed.
- Records to be returned to the trial court, with liberty for Krishnabai to reclaim original documents after the appeal period.
With that, the long-running family dispute spanning three generations and more than seven decades was finally laid to rest within the courtroom walls.
Case Title: Krishnabai Babya Navale vs. Savitri Shankar Gharat (LRs of Anubai Mahadeo Thali)
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 394 of 2017
Pronounced On: 12 November 2025
Advocates
- For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Joshi
- For Respondents: Mr. S.S. Patwardhan assisted by Mr. Kishor Tembe