Allowed

Mahadeo Bapu Thombare v. Dattu Janu Thombare

Bombay HC23 Jul 2010CRA/71/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition addressed the rejection of a suit for declaration and injunction due to alleged collusion in the compromise settlement. The Single Judge found the trial court's observations unsatisfied and allowed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The revision application is allowed; the suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clause of the compromise; matter disposed of.

Mahadeo Bapu Thombare Vs Dattu Janu Thombare — Partition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2004

¶4

Mahadeo s/o Bapu Thombre,
age 42 years, occup. Agri.
r/of Nagewadi, Taluka Bhoom,
District Osmanabad.Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Dattu s/o Janu Thombare,

¶7

age 47 years, occup. Agril.

¶8

r/o Nagewadi, Taluka Bhoom,

¶9

District Osmababad.Respondent

¶10

Smt.M.A.Kulkarni,Advocate,for the revision petitioner.

¶11

None for the respondent though served.

¶12

Coram : P.R.Borkar, J.
Date : July 23, 2010.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

01.Original suit filed by present revision
petitioner bearing R.C.S. no.311 of 2003 was for
declaration and injunction in the court of Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom. In the plaint, it
is alleged that the appellant and respondent are
cousins. They constituted joint family, but

¶15

¶16

subsequently there was partition and they were in
possession of respective separate shares as per
the partition.

¶17

02.In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint,
properties alloted to plaintiff-petitioner's share
are described. Those are in all 31 Are land. The
suit is not for partition, but only for
declaration and injunction.

¶18

03.Suit was filed on 16.10.2003 and
immediately on 18.10.2003 Respondent appeared. On
that day compromise pursis was filed at Exhibit
15, stating that at the time of Gudi Padva of
2003, partition had taken place in the presence of
panchas as claimed in the plaint. In the
circumstances, parties wanted decree in terms of
the compromise.

¶19

04.However, the learned Civil Judge in his
order dated 29.11.2003 has observed that the
compromise is in collusion and as such he rejected
the compromise and also the suit under Order 7
Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶20

05.After hearing Advocate Smt. M.A. Kulkarni
for the petitioner and considering the fact that
it was a suit for declaration and injunction, it
does not appear that the suit was filed
collusively. The decision in the suit on the

¶21

¶22

basis of compromise would be binding only on
parties to the compromise and nobody else.
Secondly, total holding of the revision
petitioner-plaintiff is so small that it cannot be
said that the compromise is a way ought for coming
out of clutches of the Ceiling Act.

¶23

06.I am, therefore, not satisfied with the
observations of the trial court that the
compromise filed was by collusion between the
parties to the suit and therefore suit should have
been rejected on that count.

¶24

07.In the result, this revision application
is allowed. In view of compromise between the
parties, the suit stands decreed in terms of
prayer clause (A). Suit and revision application
stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

pnd/cra71.04(P.R.BORKAR, J.)

Mahadeo Bapu Thombare v. Dattu Janu Thombare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Bapu Thombare v. Dattu Janu Thombare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narhari Piraji Tipre and Others Vs Ramkishan Maroti Bhise and Another

Malati W/O.Shrikrishna Patke and Others Vs Vasudeo Tukaram Ghanbahadub (Died) through Lrs. Padmabai W/O.v.Ghandahadur and Anr.

Devichand Dharmachand Jain L.Rs. Pankawarbai Devichand Jain and ORS271 Vs Pramod Kashinath Sonar

Kacheshwar Chintamani Jorvekar and Ors. Vs Gorekha Namdeo Jorvekar and Ors.

Godawari Marathwada Irri Dev Corpn a.Bad through Its Exe.Engineer Nanded Minor Irri Divn Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandit Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. Vs the Tahsil Office through Tahsildar and Ors.