Manish Rajkumar Jain vs Vijayabai Rajkumar Jain And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 290 Bom

                                     (1)                             wp11301.16

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11301 OF 2016

Manish Rajkumar Jain                                  ..       Petitioner
Age. 44 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Sarada Nagari, Beed.

                                    Versus

1.    Sou.Vijayabai w/o. Rajkumar Jain                ..       Respondents
      Age.64 years, Occ. Household,
      R/o. Gavlipura, Hingoli,
      Tal. & Dist. Hingoli.

2.    Rajkumar s/o. Manikrao Jain (Kanhed)
      Age. 71 years, Occ. Retired,
      R/o. As above.

3.    Sou. Mamta w/o. Atul Porwal
      Age. 39 years, Occ. Household,
      R/o. Sarda Nagari, Beed,
      Tal. & Dist. Beed.

4.    Sou. Manjusha w/o. Nikhilkumar Lad
      Age. 36 years, Occ. Advocate,
      R/o. Shivangi Nagar, Khakeshwar Naka,
      Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.

5.    Sou. Megha w/o. Rupeshkumar Jain
      Age.34 years, Occ. Household,
      R/o. C/o. Badje Niwas, Behind Sahil Aptt.,
      Vishal Nagar, Latur, Tq & Dist. Latur.

6.    Minakshi s/o. Rajkumar Jain
      Age. 29 years, Occ. Education,
      R/o. Gavalipura, Hingoli,
      Tal. & Dist. Hingoli.




     ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:55:01 :::
                                     (2)                             wp11301.16


7.    Manikrao s/o. Sadashivrao Londe
      Age. 74 years, Occ. Business,
      R/o. Lakh, Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli.
 

Mr.S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.O.M. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.7.


                                    CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE,J.

DATED : 01.03.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not contesting parties as they have not challenged the order dated 17.06.2011 allowing impleadment of respondent No.7 as party defendant to Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 2010.

3. Respondent No.7 is a purchaser of a portion of suit property from respondent No.1. Now it is contention of the petitioner that the suit property is ancestral and therefore liable to be partitioned between the joint family members. In case, it is proved that the suit property is ancestral, the purchaser will have right to get that share of the property which would be going to the vendor i.e. original defendant No.1 or respondent

(3) wp11301.16

No.1. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.06.2011. There is no merit in this petition. The petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule discharged.

[S.B. SHUKRE,J.]

snk/2017/FEB17/wp11301.16