Dismissed

Gangubai Dagduji Paighan v. Sow Shobha Dattatrya Paighan

Bombay HC23 Jun 2011CRA/34/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision application challenging an order permitting the sale of a minor's property. The court held that since the applicant had been given possession of her 1/3rd share, the alleged non-disclosure of the decree was not a valid ground for interference, deeming the revision devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed; the impugned order was upheld; Rules discharged.

Gangubai Dagduji Paighan Vs Sow Shobha… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 cra-34.03

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2003

¶4

Gangubai w/o Dagduji Paighan,
Age: 80 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o. Jaipur, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...APPLICANT

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

(i) Sow. Shobha w/o Dattatraya Paighan, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Jaipur, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli.

¶7

(ii) Ku. Seeta d/o Dattatraya Paighan, Age: 6 years, Occ: Nil, minor represented through natural guardian mother Resp. No.(i).

¶8

3. Bajrang s/o Sudamrao Paighan, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jaipur (Jere), Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.

¶9

4. Nagnath s/o Bhikaji Paighan, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above.

¶10

5. Vasanta s/o Sudamrao Paighan, R/o. 44 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. ...RESPONDENTS

¶11

 ...
Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for respondent Nos.(i)
and (ii).

¶12

Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to
5.
 ...

¶13

2 cra-34.03

¶14

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

The Civil Revision Application is filed

¶17

challenging the order dated 22-04-2002 passed by
the Additional District Judge, Hingoli in Misc.
Application No. 41 of 2000.

¶18

2.On 13-11-2000 the respondents herein

¶19

filed M.A. No. 41 of 2000 for appointment of
guardian of minor Kumari Seeta and permission to
sell minor’s property Gat NO. 726, 813 and 833
situated at Jaipur, Taluka Sengaon District
Hingoli. On 22-04-2002 the Additional District
Judge, Hingoli allowed the said Misc. Application.
Hence, this Civil Revision Application.

¶20

3.It is the contention of the learned

¶21

Counsel appearing for the applicant that without
disclosing the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit

¶22

3 cra-34.03

¶23

No.338 of 1988, which came to be confirmed in
Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 1993 and also in
Second Appeal Stamp No.15486 of 2000, Misc.
Application was filed by the respondents for
seeking permission to sell minor’s property from
land Gat No.723, 813 and 833 situate at Jaipur,
Taluka Sengaon District Hingoli. According to the
learned Counsel for the applicant, such order
which is obtained by fraud by not disclosing the
correct facts and the facts about the decree
passed by the competent Court which is confirmed
by the Court, needs interference since it is
obtained by playing fraud on the Court. According
to the learned Counsel for the applicant, by the
said decree in R.C.S. No.338 of 1988, 1/3 share
was given to the present applicant Gangubai who is
grandmother of respondent No.2. Therefore, Counsel
for the applicant would submit that this Court may
interfere in the Civil Revision Application and
quash and set aside the impugned order.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Counsel

¶25

4.

¶26

4 cra-34.03

¶27

appearing for the respondents submits that it is

¶28

true that there was no mention in Misc.
Application about outcome of R.C.S. No. 338 of
1988, however the fact remains that 1/3rd share as
ordered in the said decree has been given to the
applicant Gangubai by the Tahsildar.

¶29

. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent

¶30

Nos.3,4 and 5 who are purchasers of the land from
Shobha, has tendered a copy of the mutation
extract across the bar, which is taken on record
and marked as “X” for identification purpose.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that
possession of the said 1/3rd share is given to the
applicant and therefore, the applicant in no way
concern with the remaining 1/3rd share of
respondent No.1 Shobha and her minor daughter.
Therefore, according to the Counsel for the

¶31

respondents, once 1/3rd share has been given in
possession of the applicant, the applicant has no
concern with the remaining portion of the land
since other two L.Rs. Of Dattatraya namely Shobha

¶32

5 cra-34.03

¶33

and minor daughter were in possession of other
land and from the said land only, the land is sold
by Shobha to respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶34

5.Upon hearing learned Counsel for the
respective parties, in my opinion, if 1/3rd share
has been given to the applicant and to that
effect, possession is also handed over, in that
case, whether correct facts were mentioned in M.A.
No.41 of 2000 or not, is a separate subject matter
and the applicant cannot said to be aggrieved by
non disclosure of the said facts in the said M.A.
which was filed by Shobha.

¶35

6. On perusal of the copy of the mutation
extract, it is abundantly clear that 4 Hector 6
Are land i.e. 1/3rd share is given to the
applicant.

¶36

7. In that view of the matter, in my
opinion, this Civil Revision Application needs no
consideration. The District Court had jurisdiction

¶37

6 cra-34.03

¶38

to pass such order and accordingly, order came to

¶39

be passed. In my opinion, there is no any
perversity or error of jurisdiction brought to the
notice of this Court. Therefore, Civil Revision
Application is devoid of any merits. Same stands
dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶40

8. If the applicant has any grievance about

¶41

the copy of mutation extract which is placed on
record and if the applicant has any grievance
about non handing over 1/3rd share, she can agitate
same before the appropriate Forum.

¶42

9.Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent

¶43

back to the concerned court, forthwith.

¶44

sut/JUN11

Gangubai Dagduji Paighan v. Sow Shobha Dattatrya Paighan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangubai Dagduji Paighan v. Sow Shobha Dattatrya Paighan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Achutrao Waghunde and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kalyansing Durgasing Thakur Thr Lrs Amarsing and Ors. Vs Tulsabai Gulabchand Aarawal Thr Lrs Gangabai and Ors.

Smt Manishal Gulabrao Bagul Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Gumanchand Kanhyalal Mutha Vs Janta Vyapari So and Ors.

Mohd Khalilloddin Mohd Zainoddin and Ors. Vs Mohd Ziauddin Mohd Niazoddin

Bhagchand Pannalal Bothara Vs Pramilabai Died Lrs