The next reason given by the lower appellate court that
the entry in the Nazul record or Corporation is for fiscal purpose
and did not confer the title. The reason is clearly faulty. The
question is whether the oral partition pleaded by the plaintiff with
the supportive old mutation entry by the Nazul department in the
year 1958 was proved and not whether Nazul entry would confer
the title. If proved, such a partition as is the settled legal position,
does not require registration. The lower appellate court failed to
make out a distinction about the importance of of Nazul entry in
respect of oral partition duly recorded subsequent to the partition.
The said nazul document has very high probative value and in the
absence of any challenge to the same from the year 1958 and even
in the present suit, the lower appellate court was not justified in
rejecting the said document for the said reason. I, therefore, hold
that the finding about oral partition, reversed by the lower
appellate court is perverse. Hence, I answer question no. (iii) in
the affirmative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Second Appeal No.391/1999
Sangramsingh Premsingh Thakur,
...V E R S U S...
Smt. Sarlabai w/o Chhotelal Thakur,
CORAM:
A.
B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED :10.07.2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 488
