1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 1991 Dnyanu Krishna Chougule (Deceased), Heir legal representative Sitaram Dnyanu Chougule, Kuditre Petitioner vs. 1. Pandurang Daji Patil & ors. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the petitioner. Nr.Mandar Limaye i/b. Mrs.Anjali N. Helekar for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 21st July, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The dispute is about land Gat Nos.1408, 1483, 1500 and 1502 situated at Wakave (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called "the suit property). The suit property initially belongs to the petitioner and in the year 1946 the same were mortgaged to the father of the respondent. Subsequently, in the year 1954, the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of respondent’s father. The petitioner’s contention is that actually there was loan transaction between himself and the father of the respondent and, therefore, though sale deed was executed in the year 1954, the respondent’s father and thereafter respondent did not take any action for recording their 2 name in the record of rights of the suit property till 1977. 3. Tenancy Awal Karkun, Karvir on 2.3.1978 certified mutation No.180 in respect of the suit property on the basis of mortgage of 1946 and subsequent sale deed in the year 1954 in respondent’s favour. This order was confirmed by the learned S.D.O., Karvir Division, Kolhapur, the Addl. Collector, Kolhapur, the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and the Principal Secretary, (Revenue Appeals and Revision), Revenue and Forests Department in RTS Appeal No.42/78, RTS Second Appeal No.76/82, Revision RTS.SR.132/86 and Revision No.RTS.3888/61/(62)/L-6/CR.760/89/A&R respectively. 4. The petitioner disputed the execution of the mortgage and the sale deed. All the authorities below did not consider the petitioner’s objection on the ground that both the documents are registered one. The petitioner’s remedy is to approach Civil Court in this regard. The Authorities also held that the validity of those documents cannot be gone into in RTS proceedings. I find no error in the approach of the lower authorities. 5. All the authorities below concurrently held that the respondent’s name was entered into in the record of 3 records of the suit property under Section 149 of the Land Revenue Code in view of registered document of sale executed between the petitioner and the respondent’s father in the year 1954. It was also concurrently held that since 1946 the respondent’s father and after his demise the respondent is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the mortgage deed of 1946 and the on the registered sale deed executed between the parties in the year 1954. In my view, all the lower authorities below have taken correct view in the matter and no fault can be found with the same. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]