1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2518 OF 2010. Narhari Ramrao Wankhade -: VERSUS :- The Collector, Yavatmal and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 09, 2010. Heard Shri P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri A.V. Bhide, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Contention of Shri Meghe, learned counsel is that after confirmation of his rights as adopted son in Second Appeal by this Court, the mutation was effected and it was challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5. He states that in those proceedings for the first time the fact that his adoptive father Ramrao had in 1951 executed some document in favour of Ramrao's mother by name Yashodabai, came on 2 record. On the face of those documents, the wife of brother of Yashodabai claimed tenancy from her and in 1969 ownership was conferred upon her. Shri Meghe, learned counsel argues that all these proceedings were not within the knowledge of petitioner till the same were disclosed in mutation matter. He further argues that the documents as executed by Ramrao in favour of Yashodabai conferred only life interest upon her and hence, Yashodabai could not have created any tenancy to affect the interest of petitioner. He further states that as the petitioner was all the while in possession of the suit properties, the petitioner ought to have been joined as respondent even to tenancy proceedings. Shri Joshi, learned A.G.P. as also Shri Bhide, learned Counsel state that the petitioner is not in possession. Shri Bhide, learned counsel argues that the nature of documents as conferring life estate upon Yashodabai or then the so called restrictions upon her right to deal with the suit property are disputed issues which cannot be gone into by the tenancy authorities. Contention is, the theory of fraud being pressed into service must be raised before appropriate forum. After hearing the respective counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner claims that fraud has been 3 played upon him by Yashodabai in collusion with her brother Ajabrao. There is also a plea that Mankarnabai wife of Ajabrao was never tenant and could not have been the tenant. The alleged collusion and story of fraud vitiates the order if any, of tenancy authorities. Cognizance of such challenge is not possible in said jurisdiction and petitioner has to file appropriate Civil Suit seeking proper adjudication and injunction. Entries in revenue record are only for fiscal purpose and do not confer any title on any body. Hence with liberty to petitioner to take appropriate steps as he may be advised, Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.