S Govindsingh Dharamsingh ... vs S Gulabsingh Dharamsingh ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6769 Bom

                                      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.4279 OF 2017

S.Govindsingh Dharamsingh Kunjwale,
Age-62 years, Occu-Business,
R/o Hingoli Gate, Nanded,
District : Nanded                                   -- PETITIONER 

VERSUS

1. S.Gulabsingh Dharamsingh Kunjwale
    died, through LR's,

[1-a] Pawanjeetkaur w/o Gulabsingh Kunjwale
      @ Girniwale,
      Age-52 years, Occu-Household,
      R/o Near Ramkrishna Talkies, 
      Nanded, Taluka and Dist.Nanded,

[1-b] Dharmendrasingh s/o Gulabsingh Kunjawale,
      Age-62 years, Occu-Business,

[1-c]  Amitsingh s/o Gulabsingh Kunjawale,
       Age-26 years, Occu-Business,
       1-b and 1-c R/o Badpura,
       Gurudwara Gate No.4,
       Nanded, Taluka and Dist.Nanded,

[1-d] Jaswantkuar w/o Jaspalsingh Bungai,
      Age-34 years, Occu-Household,
      R/o Kasarkheda, Tal.Ardhapur
      and Dist.Nanded,

[1-e] Gulshankaur w/o Jaspalsingh Pujari,
      Age-29 years, Occu-Household,
      R/o Near Ramkrishna Talkies, Nanded,
      Taluka and Dist. Nanded                       -- RESPONDENTS 

Mr.S.N.Janakwade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amol Joshi h/f Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 A to 1E.

khs/SEPT. 2017/4279-d

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 04/09/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

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

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner / original plaintiff is aggrieved by the two orders

dated 17/12/2016 delivered by the Trial Court on the applications

Exh Nos.85 and 87 in RCS No.177/2010.

3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned

Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents / original

defendants.

4. In so far as Exh.85 is concerned, the plaintiff desires that the

Collector, Nanded, D.S.L.R. Nanded, and the Commissioner of the

Municipal Corporation, be arrayed as defendants. The justification

for seeking addition of these authorities is because they have issued

some notices and mutation entries have been carried out.

5. Merely because a revenue or statutory authority performs its

khs/SEPT. 2017/4279-d

duty by way of its day to day administration, would not mean that

these authorities need to be arrayed as defendants, much less when

their non inclusion as defendants would not obstruct the Trial Court

from deciding the suit. It is settled law that when it comes to

addition of parties, the Trial Court must be convinced that the non

inclusion of any party as a plaintiff / defendant would preclude the

Trial Court from adjudicating upon the suit. Hence the impugned

order below Exh.85 can neither be termed as being perverse nor

erroneous.

6. By application Exh.87, the plaintiff desires that the mutation

entry needs to be challenged and hence an amendment is sought for

considering the objections to the mutation entry and to subject the

mutation entry to the decision in the suit. It is further prayed in the

proposed paragraph No.10-A that wrong statements have been made

by the statutory authorities and hence by the proposed paragraphs,

a restraining order is sought as against incorporating the names of

defendant Nos. 1/1 upto 1/3. Paragraph Nos.10-A to 10-

C is sought to be included in the plaint. There is no prayer for

addition of any consequential or allied prayer clause.

7. This Court, in the matter of Shrikant R.Sankanwar and others

khs/SEPT. 2017/4279-d

Vs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar [2003(3) Bom.C.R.45] has concluded

that revenue entries as like the mutation entries are only meant for

taxation purposes. Merely because a mutation entry is carried out,

would not change the title of any person over a property and such

mutation entries do not amount to an adjudication of the right or

title over the property.

8. By the proposed 3 paragraphs, the plaintiff desires that the

probable mutation entries by which the names of the defendants

would be mutated, needs to be restrained. It is now informed that

the said mutation entries have already been effected.

9. Considering the law laid down by this Court in Shrikant

Sankanwar (supra), I do not find that the claim of the petitioner/

plaintiff would stand jeopardized or affected merely because mutation

entries are carried out. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he

would be dispossessed by virtue of the mutation entries. So also, the

plaintiff cannot be dispossessed by any authority or any of the

defendants until the due procedure laid down in law is followed.

10. The suit is at a final stage. Needless to state, the decision in

the suit will bind the revenue authorities, as well as any mutation

khs/SEPT. 2017/4279-d

entry that may have been effected during the pendency of the said

suit, would be subject to such decision. The Trial Court would

consider the contentions of the litigating sides as per their pleadings

and the oral and documentary evidence while deciding the said suit.

In this backdrop, the impugned order on Exh.87 cannot be termed as

being perverse or erroneous.

11. The petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/SEPT. 2017/4279-d