988-SA-103-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 988 SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2024 Bismillabe Nasibkha Pathan VERSUS Shaikh Babamiya Shaikh Ahemad ... Mr. Krushna Solanke for the Appellant. Mr. Sanjay D Hiwrekar for the Respondent. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the order dated 16th March 2022, passed by District Judge 1, Ambad in RCA No.144 of 2021 (old RCA No.166 of 2018) whereby the Appeal filed by Respondent came to be allowed and the order dated 7th August 2018, passed by Jt. CJJD, Ghansawangi in RCS No.6 of 2015 came to be quashed. 3. Mr. Solanke, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the name of present Appellant-Original Defendant came to be recorded in the ownership column of 7/12 extract on the basis of a partition deed executed by the present Respondent. He submits that the Respondent-Original Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of land Gat No.49 to the extent of 40R out of 9 Hector 37R land situated at village Kandari Ambad, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna. In pursuance of suit summons the Appellant- Original Defendant appeared but failed to file written statement. Hence, the Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:25346 988-SA-103-2024.doc suit proceeded without written statement of the present Appellant. The suit came to be dismissed but the learned Appellate Court allowed the Appeal filed by the present Respondent-Original Plaintiff whereby suit was decreed and the present Appellant was directed to handover the possession. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the land in question was allotted under sealing in favour of father of the Respondent- Original Plaintiff. After the demise of father of Respondent-Original Plaintiff, the property was partitioned amongst siblings and the land in question was allotted to the present Appellant-Original Defendant. Pursuant to the said partition deed, the present Appellant was put in possession of the suit property and her name was also mutated in the 7/12 extract in the ownership column. Based on the partition deed and mutation entry, the learned Trial Court dismissed the Suit but the Appellate Court reversed the order and decreed the Suit on the ground that the partition deed was an unregistered document and the same was hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. the Appellate Court further recorded finding that mutation entry is recorded only for fiscal purpose and it does not create any title. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellant-Original Defendant could not file written statement before the Trial Court hence to grant him an opportunity to defend the matter on merits, the present matter needs to be remanded to the Trial Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Hiwrekar, learned counsel for the Respondent submits Shubham 988-SA-103-2024.doc that the present Appellant has no locus to challenge the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. The Appellant-Original Defendant is not in any way related to the original land owner i.e. father of Respondent-Original Plaintiff and the theory of partition deed putforth is completely bogus. He further submits that the Appellate Court has rightly held that an unregistered partition deed cannot be considered to mutate the name of present Appellant in revenue record. Even if so considered for the sake of argument, the revenue record does not create or take away title. Therefore, he supports the order passed by learned first Appellate Court. In support of his contention he relies upon the law laid down by this Court in Nalini Vs. Girdhar Kashinath Patil & Ors. (MANU/MH/0669/2001) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narayan Laxman Patil Vs. M/s. Gala Construction Company Private Limited & Ors. (2015 AIR SCW 6333) by contending that in the present Appeal no substantial questions of law are involved. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the substantial questions of law framed by the Appellant-Original Defendant. It is clear that the case of Appellant-Original Defendant is based upon a partition deed which was unregistered. The Appellant-Original Defendant mutated her name in the 7/12 extract on the basis of said unregistered partition deed. The first Appellate Court has rightly held that an unregistered partition deed is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 Shubham 988-SA-103-2024.doc and the said deed cannot be utilized for mutation of her name in the revenue record. Even the mutation entry does not confer or take away the title of the Respondent-Original Plaintiff. Upon going through the record and the submissions advanced, I am of the opinion that no substantial questions of law is involved in the present Appeal and the Appellate Court has rightly decided the matter. Therefore, I pass the following order:- O R D E R i. Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. No order as to costs. iii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham