Tukaram Kashinath Aglawe, Dead ... vs Area General Manager, Wani Area ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15763 Bom

                                                       1                                         1.WP.4640-2021.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2021
               ( Tukaram Kashinath Aglawe (Dead), Thr. Lrs.
                                   Vs.
        Area General Manager, WCL, Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur & Ors. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the Petitioner/s.

                                  CORAM:          AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 15th NOVEMBER, 2021.

Heard Mr. Dhawas, learned counsel for the petitioner/s. He raises a contention that the impugned judgment does not consider the partition deed dated 02.06.1996, nor the pendency of RCS No. 11/2009 (New RCS No. 10/2011) claiming relief filed by the legal heirs of Tukaram Kashinath Aglawe.

2. Insofar as, the partition deed dated 02.06.1996 is concerned, I find that the said document as placed on record page No. 48 is an unregistered document, and therefore, the document is hit by the provisions of Section 17 (1)(b) & (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 due to which the consequential effect of Section 49 (a) & (c) of the Registration Act,1908 would come into play and no relief can be claimed by the petitioner on its basis. The suit filed by the legal heirs of Tukaram Kashinath Aglawe, RCS No. 10/2011, which is solely based upon this partition deed dated 02.06.1996,

2 1.WP.4640-2021.odt

and claims a relief of being an absolute owner of the property in question, would also suffer from the same consequence as indicated above, and therefore, the plea advanced on the basis of the partition deed dated 02.06.1996, in my considered opinion is not available to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Dhawas, learned counsel for the petitioner/s further submits, that there was a lack of opportunity in the matter of hearing the petitioner/s and also for granting a reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witness, considering which, issue notice to the respondents returnable in one week. In addition to regular mode of service, the petitioner to serve the respondents by all modes permissible in law including Email and What's App.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/s seeks liberty to delete respondent No. 3-the Special Tribunal from the array of respondents. Liberty is granted. The respondent No. 3 be deleted and accordingly correction be carried out today itself.

5. Considering, that the learned Tribunal, has already granted a stay to the disbursement of the amount till 16.11.2021, the same shall be continued till 23.11.2021.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte