2026 INSC 898
Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya & Ors. v. Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana & Ors.
Supreme Court of India — Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal Nos. 10586–10588 of 2026 and Civil Appeal Nos. 10667–10668 of 2026
Judgment dated: 20 August 2026
Bench: S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
I. HEAD NOTES
A. Common subject matter and proceedings — Paras 1–2
The Civil Appeals arose from proceedings before the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court concerning the same agricultural land situated at Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District, comprising Block Nos. 850P, 853 and 859P, measuring approximately 18 acres 10 gunthas.
The Bombay appeals concerned execution-related proceedings arising from a consent decree for specific performance. The Gujarat appeals concerned proceedings relating to the appellants' claim of protected tenancy under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
B. MoUs and specific-performance decree — Paras 4–5
The legal heirs of Hirabai Desai entered into MoU dated 30.10.2013 and Supplementary MoU dated 15.04.2015 concerning the subject property in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instituted Suit No. 955 of 2015 for specific performance. A Consent Decree was passed by the Bombay High Court on 06.05.2016.
C. Execution and possession — Para 5
A Court Receiver had been appointed on 06.05.2016 and police assistance was provided on 24.01.2018.
In execution of the decree, E.A. (L) No. 5258 of 2021 was filed. I.A. (L) No. 20980 of 2021 sought delivery of vacant possession and was allowed on 11.03.2022.
The appellants thereafter filed I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 seeking recall of the order dated 11.03.2022.
D. Disputed factual issues — Para 6
The Supreme Court recorded that the contesting parties had serious facts in issue concerning the MoUs dated 30.10.2013 and 15.04.2015.
E. Bombay Division Bench order — Para 7
The Bombay Division Bench dismissed the appeal and also disposed of I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, proceeding, inter alia, on the basis that the appellants had proceeded upon an incorrect understanding concerning the appointment of the Court Receiver and that any agricultural-tenancy claim should be pursued before the appropriate forum.
F. Supreme Court's finding concerning the Bombay proceedings — Para 15
The Supreme Court held that the Bombay Division Bench order had traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022.
The findings in paragraphs 8–11 of that order were consequently set aside and I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 was restored for adjudication in accordance with law.
G. Protected-tenancy proceedings — Para 9
The appellants claimed that, under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, they had been declared protected tenants on 03.06.2024.
The respondents challenged the position before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court made an interim arrangement, including permitting the appellants to reap standing crops.
H. Advocate Receiver — Para 16
The Supreme Court recorded that there was a “scramble for possession” and that divergent claims had been advanced by both sides.
The Court modified the Gujarat High Court orders and directed appointment of an Advocate Receiver for administration and supervision of the property during the pendency of the substantive proceedings.
II. FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE
1. Property — Para 2
The subject property consists of:
Block No. 850P, old Survey Nos. 743, 744 and 745;
Block No. 853, old Survey No. 747;
Block No. 859P, old Survey No. 733;
situated at Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District, measuring approximately 18 acres 10 gunthas of agricultural land.
2. MoU dated 30.10.2013 — Para 4
The legal heirs of Hirabai Desai entered into an MoU dated 30.10.2013 concerning transfer of the subject property in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
This document forms part of the factual foundation of the respondents' specific-performance claim.
3. Supplementary MoU dated 15.04.2015 — Para 4
A supplementary MoU was subsequently executed on 15.04.2015.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relied upon both MoUs and instituted Suit No. 955 of 2015 for specific performance.
Evidentiary significance
The Supreme Court records the existence and litigation arising from these documents but, in para 6, expressly recognises that serious factual issues concerning them remain between the parties.
4. Consent Decree dated 06.05.2016 — Para 5
The Bombay High Court passed a Consent Decree for Specific Performance on 06.05.2016.
This decree is the basis of the subsequent execution proceedings referred to in the judgment.
5. Court Receiver — Para 5
A Court Receiver was appointed on 06.05.2016.
The judgment further records that police assistance was provided on 24.01.2018.
The Bombay Division Bench subsequently considered the historical basis of the Receiver's appointment, including the earlier decree dated 15.02.1956 in Suit No. 1269 of 1951.
6. Execution proceedings — Para 5
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed:
E.A. (L) No. 5258 of 2021
for enforcement of the 06.05.2016 decree.
Within the execution proceedings, they sought vacant possession through:
I.A. (L) No. 20980 of 2021.
That application was allowed on 11.03.2022.
7. Recall application — Para 5
The appellants filed:
I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022
seeking recall of the order dated 11.03.2022.
This application subsequently became central to the Supreme Court's finding in para 15.
8. Bombay High Court orders — Paras 7–8
The learned Single Judge refused interim protection on 04.04.2022.
The appellants challenged the order before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench passed the order dated 28.06.2022.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that the Division Bench had gone beyond the scope of the appeal in dealing with the pending application.
9. Section 32G proceedings — Para 9
The appellants claimed that on 03.06.2024, they had been declared protected tenants under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
The respondents challenged that position before the Gujarat High Court through SCA Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024.
10. Gujarat High Court interim arrangement — Para 9
On 16.10.2024, the learned Single Judge made an interim arrangement, including permitting the appellants to reap standing crops, if any.
The appellants challenged the order before the Division Bench.
The LPAs were dismissed on 24.12.2024.
III. CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL RELIED UPON — PARAS 10–13
Appellants' contentions — Para 12
The appellants contended that the scope of Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022 and I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 had not been properly considered.
They asserted their right, as objectors in the execution proceedings, to participate in the inquiry and raise objections available in law.
In the Gujarat proceedings, they relied upon the protection claimed under the order dated 03.06.2024.
Respondents' contentions — Paras 12–13
The respondents contended, inter alia, that the challenge concerning the order dated 12.04.2022 had become substantially academic in view of Civil Suit No. 724 of 2025 instituted by the appellants.
They further relied upon the delivery proceedings initiated by the Court Receiver and contended that the appellants could not continue to enjoy the subject property.
Supreme Court's treatment of the rival contentions — Paras 11–14
The Supreme Court heard the rival submissions but expressly declined to determine the merits because the relevant proceedings remained pending before the respective High Courts.
The Court then examined the procedural course adopted by the Bombay High Court and the interim-possession circumstances arising in Gujarat.
IV. LAW APPLIED AND DISCUSSED
1. Scope of appellate jurisdiction — Para 15
The principal legal question arising from the Bombay proceedings concerned whether the Division Bench had acted within the scope of Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022.
After examining the pleadings and the orders dated 04.04.2022 and 28.06.2022, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had “traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of the Appeal.”
Application
The Court therefore:
set aside the findings in paragraphs 8–11 of the Division Bench order; and
restored I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022.
The application was required to be heard and disposed of “in accordance with Law.”
2. Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — Para 9
Section 32G proceedings form part of the factual and legal background of the Gujarat appeals.
The appellants relied upon the claimed declaration of protected tenancy.
However, the Supreme Court did not finally determine the legal effect or validity of the claimed protected-tenancy status.
The issue remained before the Gujarat High Court in the pending Special Civil Applications.
3. Interim protection and preservation of property — Para 16
The Supreme Court considered the competing claims concerning possession.
The Court noted:
“There is a scramble for possession, and divergent views were canvassed by both the sides.”
In those circumstances, the Court considered administration and supervision of the property through an Advocate Receiver appropriate pending determination of the substantive proceedings.
The Receiver was therefore directed to administer and supervise the subject matter.
4. No adjudication of merits — Para 11
The Supreme Court expressly stated:
“We are not adverting to the merits canvassed by both the sides…”
The reason was that I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 and the Special Civil Applications remained for consideration before the respective High Courts.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination was confined to the matters it expressly decided in the Civil Appeals.
V. FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Finding 1 — Para 15
The Bombay Division Bench traversed beyond the scope of the appeal.
Finding 2 — Para 15
The findings contained in paragraphs 8–11 of the order dated 28.06.2022 were therefore set aside.
Finding 3 — Para 15
I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 was restored for adjudication in accordance with law.
Finding 4 — Para 16
The Gujarat proceedings involved competing claims concerning possession and divergent positions of the parties.
Finding 5 — Para 16
An Advocate Receiver was appropriate for administration and supervision of the subject property during pendency of the substantive proceedings.
Finding 6 — Para 16
The Receiver arrangement was subject to the final outcome of SCA Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024 and would inure to the benefit of the successful party.
VI. CONCLUSION
A. Bombay proceedings
The Supreme Court set aside the portion of the Bombay Division Bench order which had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal.
I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 was restored and directed to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.
B. Gujarat proceedings
The Supreme Court modified the Gujarat High Court orders to provide for an Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the property pending adjudication of the Special Civil Applications.
C. Substantive rights
The Supreme Court did not finally adjudicate the competing claims concerning:
the MoUs;
tenancy;
protected-tenancy status;
title;
possession; or
the ultimate rights of the parties in respect of the property.
Those matters remain for determination in the proceedings before the competent High Courts.
D. Final order — Paras 17–18
The Civil Appeals were disposed of in the above terms, and pending applications, if any, were directed to stand disposed of.
VII. ESSENCE OF THE DECISION
The Supreme Court corrected the Bombay appellate proceedings by restoring the pending application after finding that the Division Bench had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal, and provided for neutral administration of the disputed property in the Gujarat proceedings through an Advocate Receiver. The substantive rights of the parties were left for adjudication before the competent High Courts.
