Bombay High Court
Sambhaji Gambhir Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 September, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
957.WP.8110.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8110 OF 2018
1. Sambhaji Gambhir Patil,
Age : Major Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Kanashi, Tq. Bhadgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Rajendra Sahebrao Patil,
Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Bhamre, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
3. Nirmalabai Vyankat Patil,
Age : Major, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Kanashi, Tq. Bhadgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ... PETITIONERS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik
3. The Additional District Collector,
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Pachora, Tq. Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon.
5. Ratnabai Bhayyasaheb Pawar,
Age : 51 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Bhoras (bk), Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Appellant)
...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. A.P. Avhad
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.W. Mundhe
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. R.K. Ingole
...
1/3
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:11:52 :::
957.WP.8110.18.odt
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 23.09.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard both the sides. Rule. The Rule is made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally.
2. After hearing the learned advocates of both the sides, it
transpires that the respondent No.5 claiming herself to be the adopted
daughter of the deceased Vyankat has filed a suit seeking declaration
regarding her being an adopted daughter of Vyankat who executed a gift
deed in her favour in respect of the suit properties. The petitioners have
also filed a separate suit. Though it is a suit seeking perpetual injunction
simplicitor, the respondent No.5 has also filed a counter claim asserting
herself to be the adopted daughter of Vyankat in whose favour he executed a
gift deed. Needless to state that the question of title to the suit property
would depend upon the final out come of the decision in both these suits.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner and the respondent No.5
are at loggerheads with respect to the revenue entries of the suit property.
Needless to state that the entries in the Revenue record have no bearing as
far as the title to immovable property is concerned. It would depend upon
proof or otherwise of the stand taken by the parties in the suit regarding the
factum of adoption and validity of the gift deed. The present dispute is
touching the mutations in the respect of the suit property. In my considered
957.WP.8110.18.odt
view it does not have any bearing on substantive issues being fought at in
the suits filed by both the sides.
4. In view of such peculiar state of affairs, The learned advocate of
both the sides submit that when the substantive proceedings in the form of
suits are already pending before the Civil Court wherein the decision as
regard right and title of the parties to the suit property is to be decided
finally, the Writ Petition can be disposed of by simply observing that the
learned Civil Judge shall be free to decide the suit without getting
influenced by the conclusions drawn by the Revenue Authorities in the
judgments and orders impugned in this Writ Petition.
5. With such observations the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
