1 931cra173.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (CRA) NO. 173 OF 2026 Laxman s/o Waghu Soyam and others Vs Karnu Lachma Soyam Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. Siddharth M. Lodha, counsel for applicants. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE J. DATE : 14/10/2026. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants at length. 2. By the present application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicants take exception to the order dated 03/08/2026 passed below Exhibit-59 in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2025 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kelapur, District Yavatmal, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected on the ground that the non-applicant / plaintiff had disclosed a cause of action and that the suit filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff was not barred by any law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants canvassed that, as per the pleadings raised by the non-applicant / plaintiff, though he claims to be a member of Scheduled Tribes, the provisions of Hindu Law are not applicable to the members of Scheduled Tribes Community. It is further submitted that the non-applicant/plaintiff himself has averred in the plaint that his brother Soyam and his father Lachma Soyam, were members of an undivided Hindu family. The family of the plaintiff cultivated 2026:BHC-NAG:13882 2 931cra173.2026.odt the land bearing Gat No. 19, situated at village Maregaon, Taluka Kelapur, District Yavatmal. The said land was recorded in the revenue record, and the Forest Department had granted said land in the name of Lachama Soyam. The plaintiff’s brother, Waghu Soyam, was a member of undivided family. 4. It is further submitted that, in the year 2004 Waghu Lachma Soyam died and, after his said demise, the names of his legal representatives were recorded in revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 77 date 18/9/2005. It is further canvassed that all the present applicants/original defendants had challenged the said Mutation Entry No.77 on 17/11/2011, the Collector, Yavatmal passed an order confirming the entry of the plaintiff’s name in the 7/12 extract. Therefore, revision application was filed against the said order of the Collector. However, on 19/05/2025, the Revisional Authority passed an order and dismissed revision of the plaintiff and consequently, Mutation Entry No. 77 remained intact and was confirmed. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the acquisition of the suit land was initiated. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendants claim rights in respect of the land granted by the Forest Department. 5. It is the contention of non-applicant/plaintiff that the suit land has been acquired and the compensation has been deposited with the Forest Department. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he is also entitled to receive compensation corresponding his share in the acquired suit land. After service of suit summons, the present applicants/original defendants 3 931cra173.2026.odt Nos. 3 to 9 appeared and filed an application below Exhibit No.59 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action and that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 6. On 06/03/2008, learned trial Court passed an impugned order and held that the plaintiff had disclosed the cause of action, as he claimed entitlement to a share in the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of land but his share has been denied. Further the trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by any law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants canvassed that, as per the law laid down in the case of Nawang and another Vs Bahadur and others reported in [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1025], wherein it has been held that the members of the Scheduled Tribe continue to be governed by their own customary law of succession and inheritance, that the Act cannot be extended to Scheduled Tribes in the absence of notification under Section 2(2) thereof. 8. In the case in hand, non-applicant/plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2025 and has specifically prayed for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of the suit property and that he is also entitled for half share in the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of suit land. The applicants have not brought any material on 4 931cra173.2026.odt record to establish that whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by any specific law. 9. Needless to say that, the plaintiff has specifically averred in para-9 of the plaint that, on 7/8/2025, he issued legal notice to the defendants and claimed half share in the compensation amount payable in respect of the acquired suit land, but the said amount was not paid to him. Thus, according to the plaintiff, a cause of action arose in his favour. 10. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned trial Court has duly considered the provisions of Order VII Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has disclosed a cause of action and that the suit is not barred by any law. The learned Trial Court has also considered the pleadings of the plaintiff and the reliefs sought in the suit. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not appear to be illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/10/2026 17:49:58