The Bombay High Court has clarified that Mirashi tenancy, a form of permanent hereditary landholding under Maharashtra revenue law, constitutes joint family property under Hindu law. The judgment reinforces that a karta cannot unilaterally dispose of such property beyond his share without consent of co-heirs, even through a registered sale deed. This decision provides critical doctrinal clarity for litigants in rural property disputes involving ancestral tenancies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, four sisters of the original defendant No.1, sought partition and declaration that a registered sale deed executed by their brother Dnyaneshwar in 1983 over land at Survey No.119/2B was binding only to his share, not theirs. The property originated as Mirashi tenancy held by their ancestors since 1920, inherited from Narayan Kate, who held it jointly with his two brothers. After Vishnu (father of appellants) died in 1945, his widow Tanubai acquired a life interest under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. Upon her death in 1960, her share devolved upon her children, including the appellants and Dnyaneshwar.
Procedural History
- 1949: Tanubai and Dnyaneshwar filed Civil Suit No.2496 for partition; compromise decree divided compensation from land acquisition equally between Vishnu’s and Mahadu’s branches.
- 1974: Survey No.119/2 was sub-divided into 119/2A and 119/2B; revenue record showed Dnyaneshwar as holder of 119/2B.
- 1983: Dnyaneshwar executed a registered sale deed transferring 3 acres 25 guntha of Survey No.119/2B to respondent No.10, describing it as "ancestral property derived from Vishnu."
- 1997: Appellants filed Special Civil Suit No.1900 for partition and declaration.
- 2011: Trial Court dismissed the suit.
- 2014: First Appellate Court (District Judge) partly allowed the appeal, excluding Survey No.119/2B from partition.
- 2026: Second Appeal heard by Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought a declaration that the 1983 sale deed was valid only to the extent of Dnyaneshwar’s share and not binding on their shares as co-heirs. They also sought partition and separate possession of Survey No.119/2B.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a registered sale deed executed by a karta over land held as Mirashi tenancy can bind the shares of co-heirs, and whether the description of the property as "ancestral" in the deed, coupled with contemporaneous revenue records and prior compromise decrees, creates an estoppel against the transferee.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior Advocate Sanjeev Gorwardkar argued that Mirashi tenancy is a permanent, inheritable interest under Shrimantibai Ramu Nargude v. Bhimrao Appa Nargude, and thus forms part of joint family property. He emphasized that Tanubai’s interest devolved upon all children under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, making the property ancestral. The 1983 sale deed explicitly described the land as "ancestral property derived from Vishnu," and respondent No.10 admitted this in cross-examination. The first appellate court erred in ignoring these admissions and the revenue record showing continuous joint family possession.
For the Respondent
Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar contended that the appellants failed to plead the 1949 compromise decree or the nature of Mirashi tenancy, rendering them inadmissible. He argued that the entire Survey No.119 was acquired by the government, extinguishing tenancy rights, and that the sale deed was valid as Dnyaneshwar was the sole recorded tenant. He relied on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank to argue that admissions alone cannot confer rights without proof of detrimental reliance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and found the first appellate court’s reasoning on Survey No.119/2B to be internally contradictory. While it accepted that the property was joint family property in other parts of the judgment, it inexplicably held that Tanubai lost all interest after receiving compensation under the 1949 compromise decree. This ignored the fact that revenue records continued to show Mahadu and later Dnyaneshwar as tenants of Survey No.119/2, and that a joint application for sub-division was filed in 1974.
"The contention raised on behalf of respondent No.10 that the entire survey No.119 was acquired by the Government would render null and void the registered document dated 9th June 1983, upon which the respondent No.10 claims right in the aforesaid suit property. This further demonstrates the fallacy in the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.10."
The Court held that the description of the property as "ancestral" in the sale deed, coupled with respondent No.10’s admission in cross-examination, operated as an estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, even without formal pleading. The court distinguished Janki Vashdeo by noting that the first appellate court itself had accepted the 1949 compromise decree and the relationship between parties as proven. The court affirmed that Mirashi tenancy is inheritable and forms part of joint family property, and that a karta’s alienation binds only his share.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Bombay High Court held that the registered sale deed dated 9th June 1983 is valid only to the extent of Dnyaneshwar’s share in the Mirashi tenancy and is not binding on the shares of the appellants. The decree was modified to reflect this, affirming the joint family nature of the property and the limited scope of the karta’s authority.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mirashi Tenancy Is Joint Family Property
- Practitioners must treat Mirashi tenancy as ancestral property under Hindu law unless proven otherwise.
- Revenue records showing continuous possession by one member do not extinguish co-heirs’ rights.
- The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1) converts life interests into absolute ownership, triggering devolution to all heirs.
Admission in Sale Deed Creates Estoppel
- A transferee who accepts a deed describing property as "ancestral" cannot later deny its joint nature.
- Cross-examination admissions on such matters are binding, even if later retracted in written statements.
- Section 115 of the Evidence Act applies without formal pleading if the admission is clear and relied upon.
Karta’s Alienation Is Limited
- A karta may transfer only his share in joint family property; any attempt to transfer co-heirs’ shares is voidable.
- Buyers must verify the nature of tenancy and family structure before purchase.
- Title insurance or due diligence must include inquiry into Mirashi tenancy history and succession rights.
