: 1 : 391-11-WP-c=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2011 Mrs. Satyabhama Madhavrao Kahandal .. Petitioner v/s. Vithal Punjaji Pawar .. Respondents since deceased through his LRs. & Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2011 Mr. Madhavrao Ramchandra Kahandal .. Petitioner v/s. Vithal Punjaji Pawar .. Respondents since deceased through his LRs. & Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 393 OF 2011 Mr. Ravindra Madhavrao Kahandal .. Petitioner v/s. Vithal Punjaji Pawar .. Respondents since deceased through his LRs. & Ors. ......... Mr. Sagar Mane i/b Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Sathaye for respondent no.1 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER,2011. : 2 : 391-11-WP-c=.sxw P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. M.M. Sathaye waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, all these three petitions are taken for final hearing. 2. The point involved in these three petitions is common. Hence, these petitions are being disposed of by passing common order. The predecessor of the respondent by name Vithal P. Pawar filed in all three suits in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik against the respective petitioner. The numbers of the Civil Suits are Civil Suit No.163 of 2004, 164 of 2004 and 165 of 2004 respectively. In each of the suit, on account of death of original plaintiff Mr. Vithal Pawar, the respondent filed applications for bringing them on record. The said applications were contested by the respective petitioners in the respective suits and each of the application was allowed by learned 6th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Judge) by the respective order. All the orders are dated 25th November, 2010. : 3 : 391-11-WP-c=.sxw 3. These three orders dated 25th November, 2010 are challenged in these three petitions as mentioned aforesaid. I have heard learned advocates on both sides. The fact that the respondents are the heirs of Mr. Vithal Pawar, the original plaintiff is nowhere disputed by the respective petitioners. The application for bringing respondents on record was opposed by each of the petitioners on the ground that late Mr. Pawar and his other relatives including the present respondents had sold and disposed of the lands covered by these three suits to certain other persons. According to the petitioners on account of these Sale Deeds, late Mr. Pawar and now the present respondents have no rights in respect of the lands covered by these three petitions and as such respondents cannot prosecute the three suits as they are not the owners in respect of the lands in question. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sathaye appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the transactions to which a reference is being made by each of the petitioner/petitioners is not acceptable by the present respondents and respondents even today maintain that they are the owners in respect of the property. : 4 : 391-11-WP-c=.sxw 5. I have perused the impugned orders dated 25th November, 2010. I am inclined to hold that view taken by the learned trial Judge is correct. The stand of each of the petitioner/petitioners that the respondents have lost their rights in each of the suit land, cannot be accepted merely because each of the petitioner/petitioners claim that late Mr. Pawar and or present respondents had disposed the said properties. It is pertinent to note that till today those persons to whom the properties are said to have disposed of have not approached the Court in order to put up their claims. In such a situation, the bare claim of the present petitioner/petitioners that late Mr. Pawar while he was alive and thereafter the present respondents have no right in respect of each of the properties, cannot be accepted. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner/petitioners tried to submit that in the revenue records, mutation entries are found as regards sale of the lands in favour of those persons as contended by the petitioner/ petitioners. In my view, mutation entries by themselves will not confirm the stand of the petitioner/petitioners. This is so because it is well known that mutation entries in the revenue record do not represent a correct picture about the title of the land. For the aforesaid reasons, each of the petition cannot be entertained. The view taken by the learned trial Judge : 5 : 391-11-WP-c=.sxw is correct. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of each of the petition. ORDER (i) Each of the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)