A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Lilachand Tuljaram Gujar & Ors v. Mallappa Tukaram Borgavi & Ors examined the legality of occupancy rights surrendered by one co-owner under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and whether such surrender could extinguish the redemption rights of the other co-owner. The appellants, being mortgagees of the land originally owned jointly by two brothers—Shiddappa and Annappa—claimed that a Rajinama (relinquishment) executed by Shiddappa, the registered occupant, transferred full ownership to them, thereby extinguishing both brothers’ equity of redemption. However, the respondent argued that such unilateral relinquishment did not affect Annappa’s rights. The Court held that under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, a registered occupant could not, in the absence of clear authorization, relinquish occupancy rights on behalf of co-owners. It emphasized the individual rights of occupants and clarified that mortgagees’ possession under a usufructuary mortgage did not amount to adverse possession. The case reinforces the principle that mere registration does not confer absolute authority, and redemption rights cannot be extinguished without express legal grounds. This judgment also elaborates on the scope of adverse possession in mortgage cases and the independence of equity of redemption rights between co-mortgagors.

Keywords: Usufructuary Mortgage, Registered Occupant, Equity of Redemption, Bombay Land Revenue Code, Relinquishment, Adverse Possession

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Lilachand Tuljaram Gujar and Others v. Mallappa Tukaram Borgavi and Others

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date: September 11, 1959

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Chief Justice S.R. Das, Justice M. Hidayatullah, and Justice K.C. Das Gupta

vi) Author: Chief Justice S.R. Das

vii) Citation: 1960 (1) SCR 693

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 74, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879

• Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act

• Indian Limitation Act

• Doctrine of Adverse Possession

ix) Judgments Overruled: None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

• Property Law

• Mortgage and Redemption Law

• Civil Law

• Revenue Law

• Law of Limitation

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case revolved around the rights of redemption over occupancy land jointly mortgaged by two brothers, Shiddappa and Annappa. The land was mortgaged via a usufructuary deed in 1888. Later, in 1900, Shiddappa, the registered occupant under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, unilaterally relinquished his rights through a Rajinama. The mortgagees, based on that relinquishment, sought transfer of full occupancy. The central issue was whether this act also extinguished Annappa’s half share and the associated right of redemption.

The respondents, legal heirs of Annappa, challenged this and filed a suit for redemption, claiming that Shiddappa could not unilaterally surrender Annappa’s share. The trial court, the district court, and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the respondents, affirming that rights of redemption are distinct and cannot be extinguished by unilateral action of a co-owner unless explicitly authorized.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The suit property, a religious Devasthan Inam land (R.S. No. 301), belonged to brothers Shiddappa and Annappa, with the Khata registered in Shiddappa’s name. Both brothers executed a usufructuary mortgage in 1888 in favour of the appellants for ₹1,300. Subsequently, Shiddappa alone executed a simple mortgage in 1900 for ₹600. On March 22, 1900, before registering the mortgage, Shiddappa executed a Rajinama surrendering occupancy under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The mortgagees applied for and were granted occupancy by the Mamlatdar via a Kabuliyat on the same day.

Shiddappa’s death was followed by multiple unsuccessful applications and suits by Annappa and Tukaram (Shiddappa’s son) for the cancellation of the transfer. Eventually, in 1937, Tukaram and his son Ganpat filed the present suit for redemption.

The appellants claimed that the Rajinama extinguished the right of redemption. During the litigation, Annappa’s legal heirs (via will) were added as co-plaintiffs. The courts below ruled that the Rajinama did not affect Annappa’s share, and hence his redemption rights subsisted. The mortgagees appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a registered occupant under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can unilaterally relinquish occupancy rights of co-owners?

ii) Whether the Rajinama executed by one co-owner extinguishes the equity of redemption for both?

iii) Whether the mortgagees’ possession amounts to adverse possession extinguishing the rights of the non-signatory co-owner?

iv) Whether Annappa’s claim was time-barred?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Petitioners submitted that:

The Rajinama executed by Shiddappa, as the registered occupant, transferred full ownership to the mortgagees. They argued that Section 74 allowed a registered occupant to relinquish land either absolutely or in favour of others, and thus, Shiddappa’s relinquishment included Annappa’s share. They emphasized that the surrender was accepted by the revenue authorities, and the occupancy rights were transferred in the revenue records.

They further argued that possession since 1900 amounted to adverse possession, which barred the respondents’ right to redeem. Additionally, they attempted to assert that Shiddappa acted as karta of the joint family, thus binding Annappa.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that:

Shiddappa’s Rajinama could not extinguish Annappa’s independent right of redemption. They argued that under Section 74, each co-owner had independent rights which could not be relinquished without explicit authority. Since the Rajinama never mentioned Annappa or showed authorization, the surrender could not affect his share.

They also contended that mortgagees entered possession under a valid usufructuary mortgage, and hence such possession could never become adverse without a clear repudiation of title. Multiple legal attempts made by Annappa over the years reinforced the continuity of his claim, defeating the plea of limitation.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 74, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – Governs relinquishment of occupancy. The section mandates that only the registered occupant may give notice but does not allow unilateral extinguishment of co-owners’ rights unless authorized. (Read here)

ii) Limitation Act, 1908 (Now 1963) – Adverse possession and period for redemption.

iii) Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act – Governs rights of agriculturists, relevant to earlier suits for accounts.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that a registered occupant under Section 74 does not have the authority to unilaterally relinquish the rights of co-owners. The section facilitates relinquishment for administrative convenience but does not confer absolute title over co-owned land.

The Court emphasized that ownership rights cannot be altered merely through revenue record changes. The absence of express authority or mention of Annappa in the Rajinama rendered it invalid concerning his share. The Court reaffirmed this principle by referring to Lalchand Sakharam Marwadi v. Khendu Kedu Ughade, 22 Bom LR 1431 and Khiarajmal v. Daim, ILR 32 Cal 296 (PC).

The Court also rejected the adverse possession claim, noting that mortgage possession originates lawfully. The mere assertion of ownership does not convert such possession into adverse, especially when the equity of redemption remains unextinguished and litigation continues.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court remarked that mere registration as occupant does not imply control over others’ rights. It reiterated that revenue entries do not override proprietary rights and cannot extinguish co-owner rights without express relinquishment or valid title transfer.

c. GUIDELINES 

• A registered occupant cannot relinquish the share of a co-owner unless authorized explicitly.

• Revenue authorities’ decisions on relinquishment do not affect civil proprietary rights unless validated through competent civil courts.

• Usufructuary mortgage possession does not ripen into adverse possession unless clearly hostile and communicated.

• Any transfer under revenue laws must align with civil rights under the Transfer of Property Act and Contract Law.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment clarifies the limited authority of registered occupants under revenue laws and protects co-owners’ property rights. It ensures that equity of redemption, a foundational doctrine in mortgage law, remains intact unless expressly extinguished through due legal process.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation protects joint ownership, prevents misuse of administrative registration, and upholds civil law supremacy over revenue procedures. The case balances technical interpretations of Section 74 with equitable outcomes in mortgage law, strengthening property jurisprudence in India.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Lalchand Sakharam Marwadi v. Khendu Kedu Ughade, 22 Bom. L.R. 1431
2. Khiarajmal v. Daim, ILR 32 Cal 296 (Privy Council), (1904) LR 32 IA 23

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Section 74, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
2. Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act
3. Indian Limitation Act, 1908 / 1963