Bombay High Court
Bharati Dinesh Bari And Others vs Prakash Ramdas Bari And Others on 4 August, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-9931.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9931 OF 2013
1. Smt. Bharati w/o Dinesh Bari
Age - 37 years, occup. Household,
2. Ku. Pallavi Dinesh Bari,
Age - 16 years, occup. Education,
3. Ku. Sapna Dinesh Bari,
Age- 11 years, occup. Education,
4. Pradip Dinesh Bari,
Age - 15 years, occup. Education,
All are R/o rath Chowk, Pimprala,
Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon,
[ Petitioner no. 2 to 4 minor under .. Petitioners
guardianship of petitioner no. 1 ]
versus
1. Prakash Ramdas Bari,
Age - 57 years, occup. Farm Worker,
2. Devidas Ramdas Bari,
AGe - 52 years, occup. Farm Worker,
3. Sudhakar Ramdas Bari,
Age - 46 years, occup. Farm Worker,
Respondents no. 1 to 3 are r/of
Bariwada, Rath Chowk, Pimprala,
Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
4. Smt. Sundarbai w/o Ramesh Nagpure,
Age - 61 years, occup. Household,
R/o A/p Kuha Panche, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon
5. Sau. Padmabai Chhabildas Khade,
Age 59 yers, occup. Household,
R/o Vitthal Peth, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:40:00 :::
2 WP-9931.13.doc
Mr. Sanesh Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent no. 5
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 4th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for parties finally, by consent.
2.
This is a petition, directed against order dated 15-10-2013
passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon,
rejecting application Exhibit - 17 filed by present petitioners-
plaintiffs seeking amendment to plaint in regular civil suit no.
80 of 2013 instituted by them for partition and separate
possession of properties which are more particularly referred to
and described in the plaint, including the one bearing Gut no.
185 situated at village Pimprala in taluka and district Jalgaon, to
the extent, ad-measuring about 57 aar.
3. While the petitioners appear to be wife and children of
deceased Dinesh Bari who was brother of defendants no. 1 to 4,
the property appears to have been claimed to be ancestral and
as such, after death of Dinesh, to his share petitioners -
plaintiffs claim to have succeeded. Defendant no. 4 appears to
be their sister and defendant no. 5 is the purchaser of aforesaid
3 WP-9931.13.doc
area in land Gut no. 185 while it was bearing agricultural
character way back in 1998 under a registered sale deed.
4. While the suit was instituted claiming partition of
properties, including aforesaid land, it had been referred to be
bearing the character as agricultural land. Suit has been
instituted on 27-02-2013. However, as the suit progressed, it
was realized by the plaintiffs that the suit land had been
converted for non agricultural use in the year 2000.
5. Upon noticing aforesaid, application Exhibit - 17 had been
filed by plaintiffs seeking necessary correction in the plaint about
description of character of the suit land and a further description
since it appears that several plots have been carved out by
defendant no. 5 in the same.
6. Exhibit-17 had been resisted by defendant no. 5 - present
respondent no. 5, stating that, as a matter of fact, 7 x 12
extracts were obtained before institution of the suit and those
were depicting that the land concerned had been converted into
non agricultural use. It is contended that in spite of being so
aware, plaintiffs went on to institute the suit and if the desired
amendment under the application is allowed, it would change
nature of suit while presently it has been a suit for partition of
agricultural land, after amendment, it would be converted into a
4 WP-9931.13.doc
suit seeking partition of land put to non agricultural use.
Application was resisted also on the ground that such an
amendment would cause alteration even in the valuation of the
suit and in that case the court may not have pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the same.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the court has
considered that the land had been converted into non
agricultural user in the year 2000 and suit had been instituted in
2013 and as such, it would be difficult to appreciate that the suit
had been instituted in haste and that it was not realized that the
land concerned had ceased to be an agricultural land. The trial
court has also considered that since seventeen plots have been
carved out from the suit land, those plots would have different
boundaries and as such, description of the property would also
undergo change. Simultaneously, it has also been considered
that even the valuation of suit would undergo change. In the
circumstances, the court has considered that although the trial
of the suit has yet not commenced, the nature of the suit would
undergo change and thus went on to reject the application and
as such, plaintiffs are before this court under the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the
considerations which have weighed with the trial court have
5 WP-9931.13.doc
been under an erroneous conception and appreciation of the
matter. Learned counsel submits that as far as the area of the
suit land and its' outer boundaries are concerned, it is absolutely
not going to be changed under the amendment sought, for, as
far as 57 aar area from the land is concerned, the dispute about
said area would remain the same. Seventeen plots carved out
would holistically show the same boundaries. If valuation gets
changed after amendment is allowed, that would not be a
consideration germane for refusing amendment sought. He
submits that it cannot be said that the court can grant
amendment only if it has jurisdiction to deal with the matter
upon amendment. He submits that the nature of suit would
absolutely not be changed as claimed by defendants, for, suit
would continue to be suit for partition and possession of the
properties. He submits that the trial court has misdirected itself
while enquiring into and rejecting application Exhibit-17.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5-purchaser of suit land
contends that the whole of the suit is unrealistic one, for, entire
gut no. 185 had been dealt with during lifetime of Dinesh -
husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of rest of the petitioners.
In fact, when he was alive, he had not been aggrieved and had
not proceeded against sale of the property way back in 1998 in
6 WP-9931.13.doc
favour of defendant no. 5. Ten years down after his death,
present suit has been instituted in the year 2013. According to
learned counsel, suit instituted in 2013 is barred by law of
limitation and also on other grounds. Registered sale deed in
favour of defendant no. 5 is executed in 1998. He submits that
the valuation of the suit would undergo change and the court,
after granting amendment as has been sought, would not have
jurisdiction. Further, he contends that the nature of the suit also
would undergo change, for, suit would be in respect of the land
put to non agricultural use and not for partition of agricultural
land as had been initially sought by the plaintiffs.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon perusal
of the order impugned, it appears that the plaintiffs are wife
and children of deceased brother of defendants no. 1 to 4 and
that apart from gut no.185, there is yet another property of
which also partition has been sought.
11. Whether the land is a agricultural land or has been put to
non agricultural use, the right and partition as claimed in respect
of the same would be assessed based upon evidence. As such,
change in description of character of the land as it is presently
bearing, is unlikely to adversely affect the character of the right
claimed by the petitioners by seeking partition and separate
7 WP-9931.13.doc
possession of the land. It does not appear that merely by
change of description of land, the nature of the suit can be said
to be altered. Change in valuation, change in description of the
land would seldom be a material which would be able to refrain
the court from passing order granting amendment. As far as
amendment is concerned, the courts normally are supposed to
approach liberally.
12. Here, in present matter, the widow and her children have
instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. Suit is
of the year 2013. Application is also filed in 2013. Further, the
trial in the suit is yet to commence. In the circumstances, the
view and the perspective taken for appreciation by the trial court
appears to be incongruous with general position of law. In any
case, if the amendment sought by plaintiffs is allowed,
defendant no. 5's claimed right will have to be defended,
including if she has filed written statement, she will have to be
allowed to amend the same consequent upon amendment to the
plaint. As far as defence, including point with regard to limitation
as has been canvassed by learned counsel Mr. Nagargoje for
respondent no.5 is concerned, it does not appear that such a
defence is forbidden.
8 WP-9931.13.doc
13. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 15-10-2013 passed by the 6th Joint Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, rejecting application Exhibit - 17
in regular civil suit no. 80 of 2013 stands set aside. Application
Exhibit-17 stands allowed. If upon amendment, it is found that
the court where the suit is instituted does not have jurisdiction,
the court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
14.
Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
