The Bombay High Court has clarified that Mirashi tenancy, a form of permanent hereditary landholding under Maharashtra’s agrarian history, constitutes joint family property under Hindu law. The judgment reinforces that a co-heir cannot unilaterally transfer the entire interest in such property through a registered sale deed, and that admissions in such deeds, coupled with revenue records, bind subsequent transferees. This decision restores the rights of female heirs in ancestral tenancies long obscured by procedural technicalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on land at Survey No. 119/2B in Pune, originally held under Mirashi tenancy by the descendants of Narayan Kate. The original plaintiffs, four sisters, claimed co-ownership of the land as heirs of their mother Tanubai, widow of Vishnu Kate. The original defendant No.1, their brother Dnyaneshwar, executed a registered sale deed in 1983 transferring the entire property to defendant No.10, who later became the contesting respondent. The plaintiffs were unaware of this transaction and later filed a suit for partition and declaration that the sale deed was binding only to Dnyaneshwar’s share.
Procedural History
- 1949: Civil Suit No. 2496 filed by Tanubai and Dnyaneshwar against Mahadu (uncle) for partition; compromise decree passed dividing compensation from land acquisition.
- 1974: Survey No. 119/2 subdivided into 119/2A and 119/2B; revenue record showed Dnyaneshwar as holder.
- 1983: Registered sale deed executed by Dnyaneshwar in favor of respondent No.10, stating the property was "ancestral property derived from Vishnu."
- 1997: Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 1900 seeking partition and declaration.
- 2011: Trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety.
- 2014: First Appellate Court 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 one co-heir of a Mirashi tenancy, which is part of a joint family property, can bind the shares of other co-heirs, and whether an admission in the deed that the property is "ancestral" operates as 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 that the property was held jointly by the family. He relied on the compromise decree of 1951 and revenue records showing continuous joint tenancy. He emphasized that Tanubai, under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, became absolute owner of her husband’s share, which devolved equally upon her children. The 1983 sale deed’s admission that the property was "ancestral" and derived from Vishnu constituted a binding admission, and the first appellate court erred in ignoring it.
For the Respondent
Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar contended that the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of joint family property or the compromise decree. He argued that the entire Survey No. 119 was acquired by the government, extinguishing tenancy rights, and that the sale deed was valid. He challenged the relevance of the admission in the deed, asserting that estoppel requires pleading and that the plaintiffs altered no position in reliance on it. He also relied on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank to argue that adverse inference should be drawn against plaintiffs for not appearing as witnesses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously reviewed the chain of title, revenue records, and the compromise decree from 1951. It held that the first appellate court erred in concluding that the acquisition of part of Survey No. 119 extinguished the Mirashi tenancy. The Court noted that Mahadu’s name continued in the revenue record for Survey No. 119/2, and agricultural activity persisted, indicating the tenancy survived.
"The revenue record did show that Mahadu's name as a tenant continued on land survey No.119/2 and ultimately it was split into land survey Nos.119/2A and 119/2B. This aspect was not appreciated in the correct perspective by the first Appellate Court to hold against the appellants."
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the admission in the sale deed was irrelevant. It held that the statement that the property was "ancestral property derived from Vishnu" was not merely a casual assertion but a formal admission by the transferee’s predecessor-in-interest. The Court emphasized that estoppel does not require pleading if the admission is clear, unambiguous, and forms part of a registered document.
The Court distinguished Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, noting that the first appellate court had already accepted the compromise decree and plaint as evidence, rendering the issue of witness testimony immaterial. The Court further held that the respondent’s own pleadings in the written statement admitted an oral partition of Survey No. 119/2B, which presupposed joint ownership.
The Court applied the principle from Shrimantibai Ramu Nargude that Mirashi tenancy is inheritable and transferable only to the extent of the holder’s share. It concluded that Dnyaneshwar, as a co-heir, could not alienate the entire interest without the consent of other heirs.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Bombay High Court held that Mirashi tenancy constitutes joint family property under Hindu law, and a registered sale deed executed by one co-heir is binding only to the extent of his share. The 1983 sale deed is not binding on the shares of the original plaintiffs, who are co-heirs of Tanubai. The decree of the first appellate court was modified accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mirashi Tenancy Is Presumed Joint Family Property
- Practitioners must treat Mirashi tenancy as joint family property unless proven otherwise by clear evidence of individual acquisition.
- Revenue records showing continuous joint cultivation and inheritance patterns are strong indicia of joint ownership.
- Female heirs retain equal rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if their names are not on revenue records.
Admission in Registered Documents Creates Binding Estoppel
- Statements in registered deeds, such as "ancestral property," are not mere recitals but binding admissions.
- Transferees cannot later deny the nature of the property if the admission is clear and the document is relied upon.
- Withdrawal of admission in written statements does not negate estoppel arising from formal documents.
Acquisition Does Not Automatically Extinguish Tenancy
- Partial land acquisition does not extinguish Mirashi tenancy on the remaining portion unless the award explicitly terminates the tenancy.
- Continued cultivation and revenue entries post-acquisition indicate survival of tenancy rights.
- Courts must examine the substance of acquisition awards, not just their existence, to determine impact on tenancy.
