Bombay High Court
Rangubai Wamanrao Siraskar And Another vs Kisanrao Annasaheb Siraskar And ... on 6 May, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:9734
1
10785.23WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10785 OF 2023
1] Smt. Rangubai wd/o Wamanrao Siraskar
Age 72 years, Occ. Household.
2] Gangadhar s/o. Wamanrao Siraskar
Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture
Both R/o. New Mondha, Palam,
Tq. Palam, District Parbhani. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] Kisanrao s/o. Annasaheb Siraskar,
Age 66 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Palam, District Parbhani
At present Sunutri, Building No.27,
Defence R & D Co-operative
Housing Society, Alandi Road,
Pune.
2] Vasantrao s/o. Dasrao Siraskar,
Age 41 years, Occ. Agri. & Business,
R/o. New Mondha, Palam,
Tq. Palam, District Parbhani. .. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.A.V.Hon, Advocate for
the petitioners
Kisanrao Annasaheb Siraskar - respondent no.1 - party in
person.
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Reserved on : 21.03.2024
Pronounced on : 06.05.2024
2
10785.23WP
JUDGMENT :
1] By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are
challenging the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Gangakhed below Exh.59 and 72 in
Special Darkhast No.3 of 2024 whereby the applications
filed by the petitioners - objectors are dismissed by the
Executing Court.
Facts giving rise to the filing the present petition can be
briefly summarized as under:
2] The Special Civil Suit No.45/2009 was decreed
by order dated 19.07.2014 by the trial Court. The suit was
for recovery of possession of Plot No.38 [Now House
No.1391], admeasuring East-West 25 ft. and South-North
100 ft., bounded as East-Farkanda Road, West-Plot of Pawar,
South - Mondha Road and North - Mondha Road. One
Vasant Dasrao Siraskar was the defendant. The said decree
came to have been confirmed by the High Court in Second
Appeal No.702 of 2017 dated 17.10.2018. Moreover, the
Hon'ble Apex Court also dismissed Special Leave Petition
10785.23WP
No.7387/2019 on 29.03.2019. Thus, the decree passed in
Special Civil Suit No.45/2009 attained finality. Thereafter,
the decree holder applied for execution of the decree.
3] Thereafter, in the execution proceedings one
Rangubai Siraskar and another have filed application below
Exh.59 under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w. Section 47 of Civil
Procedure Code, so also, the application below Exh.72 for
appointment of TILR to measure the suit property along
with their own.
4] The petitioners - opposite party came with the
case that the suit property as mentioned in Special Civil Suit
No.45 of 2009 is next to their property. They own survey
No.129/3 now known as House No.1985 admeasuring 15
Ft. and South-North 100 ft. and House No.1986
admeasuring East-West on Southern side 15 ft and East-
West on northn side 05 ft. and South North 100 ft., since
both the properties are combined so bounded as East-West
Palam-Farkanda Road, West-suit property of D.H., South-
north - Road.
10785.23WP
5] On consideration of the material placed on
record, by order dated 05.08.2023, the Executing Court at
para no.11 and 12 has held as under :
11- However, in the case in hand, the O.P.s
except Assessment Extracts, that too, cannot
be the title documents, have not filed any
cogent title documents showing them the
owner of property within the four boundaries
as claimed by them. Therefore, the judgments
cited supra with due respect to the ratios,
found not applicable to the case in hand.
12- Needless to say, the person challenging
the established rights of a decree holder,
ought to be armed with cogent documents in
order to shake the established rights.
However, the O.P.s have filed only
assessment extracts which are only for
fiscal purpose and they cannot be the
substituted for title documents.
Thereafter, by the aforesaid order, the
applications filed by the petitioners at Exh.59 and 72 were
rejected.
6] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
has produced a map at page 51 of the petition and
10785.23WP
contended that the petitioners have got decree qua the
property mentioned in the plaint and adjacent to the
plaintiff's property is the property of the present petitioners
and the property of the petitionerse is sought to be given in
the execution to the decree holder. After arguing for
sometime, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that let the Taluka Inspector of Land Records be
appointed and in terms of the decree, the measurement be
carried out and the decree holder be given possession of the
land as mentioned in the decree and balance land
remaining on the adjacent to the land of the plaintiff as
contended by the petitioners belong to him and that the
same be not handed over to the decree holder and his
possession on the land beyond the decree be not disturbed.
7] Submission of the learned Senior Advocate
appears to be fair and which is also not opposed by the
decree holder.
8] In view of the same, it is directed that the
Executing Court may appoint Taluka Inspector of Land
10785.23WP
Records [TILR] for measurement of the suit property and
the same be handed over to the decree holder in terms of
the decree to the extent of the property mentioned in the
decree. No further land be handed over to the decree holder
beyond the land mentioned in the decree. The decree
holder to be given possession of property as described in the
plaint total admeasuring 2500 sq. ft.
9] With the above observations, the present Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
JUDGE
DDC
