1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2009 AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2009 Shri Shankar Bapu Patil ... Appellant v/s Shri Madhukar Bapu Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar for the appellant (in both appeals) Mr.S.R.Ganbawale for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 (in both appeals). CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. The R.C.Suit No.250 of 2005 and R.C.Suit No.224 of 2004 were filed by the appellant and respondent No.1 respectively against each other and the other respondents herein. The suit filed by the appellant was for a declaration and injunction. On the other hand, the suit filed by respondent No.1 had been filed for partition and a declaration. Both the suits were decided by a common 2 judgment. The Trial Court has held that the appellant had proved that he was the owner of Gram Panchayat property No.307 (C.S. No.2859). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were therefore permanently injuncted from disturbing his peaceful possession over that property. The Trial Court further observed that respondent No.1 was the owner of Gram Panchayat property No.306 (C.S. No.2860 to C.S. No.2863). It was further held that the City Survey Officer had wrongly mutated the name of the appellant in respect of Gram Panchayat property No.306 on account of a fraud played by the appellant. The Trial Court therefore declared the mutation entry in the name of the appellant as null and void and directed that the name of respondent No.1 be entered into the records. The suit for partition of Gram Panchayat No.307 was dismissed. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellant and respondent No.1 filed the appeal before the District Court. Both these appeals were decided together by a common judgment dated 8.12.2008 by which the Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and hence the present second appeal. 3. Mr.Borkar appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the 3 mutation entries in the revenue records were correct as that would have to be decided by the revenue authorities. He relies on the judgment in the case of N.D.M.C. v/s Satish Chand, reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC 3187, in support of his submission that when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Act, the Civil Court cannot decide such issues. This submission cannot be accepted since the cause of action for respondent No.1 to file the suit had arisen on account of the entries which were made in the revenue records in the name of the appellant due to a fraud played by him on the revenue authorities. A Civil Court can decide whether the revenue records have been mutated on account of a fraud. The revenue authorities could not possibly decide the issue of fraud. 4. Mr. Borkar then submits that the Trial Court could not have declared the respondent No.1 and the appellant as owners of the respective plots of land, when the suits filed by the appellant for an injunction and the one filed by respondent No.1 was for partition. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anatulla Sudhakar v/s P.Buchi Reddy & ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. 5. In my opinion, this submission also cannot be accepted as the appellant himself had admitted that there is no dispute 4 that the property bearing Gram Panchayat property No.306 was owned by Madhukar i.e. respondent No.1 herein. Therefore, the judgment in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case. 6. No substantial question of law arise for determination by this Court. 7, Hence, the second appeals dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 5