Bombay High Court
Sulochanabai Shankarao Jadhav ... vs Kusumbai Dagdu More And Others on 26 April, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp11666-15
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11666 OF 2015
1. Sulochanabai Shankarao Jadhav PETITIONERS
Age - 70 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Rani Savergaon, Taluka - Gangakhed,
District - Parbhani
2. Shardabai Daulatrao Paul,
Age - 50 years, Occ - Agri and Household
R/o Khandali, Taluka - Ahmedpur
District - Latur
At present residing at Samarth Housing Society,
H. No.3, Paul Nivas, Old MIDC Road,
Latur, District - Latur
VERSUS
1. Kusumbai Dagdu More RESPONDENTS
Age - 53 years, Occ - Household
R/o Pansevadi, Taluka - Kandhar
District - Nanded
2. Maroti Baba Kutte,
Age - 68 years, Occ - Agriculture
3. Namdeo Maroti Kutte,
Age - 37 years, Occ - Service
4. Balaji Maroti Kutte,
Age - 30 years, Occ - Service
Respondents No.2 to 4 R/o Nagalgaon,
Taluka - Kandhar, District - Nanded
5. Renuka Narayan Jadhav,
Age - 28 years, Occ - Household
R/o Rani Savargaon,
Taluka - Gangakhed, District - Parbhani
6. Girjabai Maroti Kutte,
Age - 65 years, Occ - Household
R/o Nagalgaon, Taluka - Kandhar
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:55:12 :::
{2} wp11666-15
District - Nanded
.......
Mr. Hamzakhan I. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Ramesh Wakade, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. P. V. Ambade, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petition has been moved purportedly aggrieved by
order dated 1st September, 2015 upon application Exhibit-66 in
regular civil suit No.6 of 2013 seeking impleading of petitioners
claiming that they are sister and niece - sister's daughter of
defendant No.1 namely Maroti Baba Kutte. It is claimed that
baring few properties, as have been referred to in the
application, rest of the properties are the ancestral properties
and that they have share in the same. None of the other
particulars, rather relevant particulars have been given in the
application, nor do the dates of marriages of sisters, nor the date
of death of Baba, nor other properties contentedly left behind by
Baba.
{3} wp11666-15
3. After hearing learned advocates for the parties it appears
to be a case of the parties that suit properties are ancestral. The
suit has been instituted by daughter of defendant No.1 seeking
partition and separate possession of the suit properties, which
defendant No.1 claims to have come to his share in partition of
ancestral properties effected between him and his brother
Ramrao. Ramrao's properties in said partition are not subject
matter of the suit. Perusal of the order shows that the court has
also considered while passing the order conduct of present
petitioners in respect of other proceedings.
4. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 - plaintiff states that
as a matter of fact, the evidence is concluded and arguments of
plaintiff are also over and the suit is posted for arguments of
defendants and at this stage application had been mischievously
moved in order to protract the litigation, to support defendant
No.1, who is their brother and maternal uncle.
5. Having regard to that the petitioners purport to claim
share in the suit property as ancestral property upon partition
and have not particularly given relevant factual matters, which
may be of relevance and also have not moved hitherto for
partition of other properties left behind by Baba, the impugned
{4} wp11666-15
order passed by the court does not appear to be faulted with.
Ultimately, it is discretionary order wherein it has appeared to
the court that the presence of present petitioners is not
necessary for effectual and complete disposal of the lis as is
appearing in the suit.
6. Writ petition, as such, is not being entertained and is
dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
7.
Observations in this order shall not influence decision
making in other proceedings, which have limited efficacy only to
the extent of decision in this writ petition.
8. However, this would not preclude the petitioners to have
adjudication of rights in proper proceedings. If at all it comes to
the same, it be decided in accordance with merits and
considering the facts and law. This order would not prejudice
rights of any of the party.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp11666-15
