Dismissed

Gopal Balwant Bhosale. v. Krishna Govind Savarde.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2012WP/1945/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an application to delete Issue No.7, the Court held that the issue, framed due to a plea of ownership, should be decided regarding the necessity of referring it to the Tenancy Tribunal before proceeding further. The impugned order was confirmed, and the Trial Court was directed to decide this threshold issue immediately.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was confirmed; the Trial Court directed to decide if Issue No.7 regarding ownership requires reference to the Tenancy Tribunal; suit hearing expedited.

Gopal Balwant Bhosale. Vs Krishna Govind Savarde. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1945 OF 1996

¶2

Ganpat Balwant Bhosale (Deceased) Through : Legal Heirs

¶3

.. Petitioners

¶4

Vs. Govind Krishna Savarde (Deceased) Through : Legal Heirs .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. D. Dharmadhikari for the Petitioners. Mr. S. M. Kamble for the Respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f) and 1(g).

¶6

CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 6, 2012

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f) and 1(g). Rest of the Respondents have been duly served.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners who are the original Plaintiffs pointed out that by an order dated 25^th November 2010, the Trial Court has restored the Suit.

¶10

By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order dated 18^th September 1995 passed by the Trial Court by which an application made by the original Plaintiff (the Predecessor of the Petitioners) for deleting issue No.7 has been rejected by the Trial Court. Issue No.7 reads thus:

¶11

Basavraj G Patil 1/3

¶12

“Do the defendants prove that they became the owner of the suit land alongwith the sons of the deceased Gopal Krishana Savarde and therefore, reference to the Tenancy Court is necessary?”

¶13

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in any event, looking to the very nature of the issue framed, the same will have to be decided before the other issues framed are decided. The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents supported the impugned judgment and order.

¶14

I have carefully considered the submissions. Law is well settled. Merely because a Defendant raises a plea of tenancy, in every case, a reference to the Appropriate Authority under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not mandatory. If the plea is not bona fide or is frivolous, the prayer for reference can be refused.

¶15

The issue No.7 as framed requires the Court to decide whether the reference to the Tenancy Court is necessary. Perusal of issue No.7 shows that the issue is framed on the basis of contention of the Defendants that they have become owners of the suit land along with sons of Gopal Krishna Savarde. The later part of the issue requires the Court to decide whether the reference to the Tenancy Court is necessary. Therefore, though later part has been incorporated, the real issue is based on the plea of ownership raised by the Defendants. The question is whether the said issue is required to be referred to the Tenancy Court.

¶16

At this stage, power of superintendence of this Court cannot be exercised to delete the issue which is already framed. The suit is of the

¶17

Basavraj G Patil 2/3

¶18

year 1988. A direction will have to be issued to the Trial Court to immediately decide the question whether the issue of ownership raised by the Defendants is required to be referred to the Tenancy Court. Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i) The impugned order is confirmed.

¶21

ii) In view of what is observed in this judgment, before proceeding with the hearing of the suit, the Trial Court is directed to decide the question whether the part of issue No.7 based on a plea of ownership is required to be referred to the Tenancy Court/Tribunal.

¶22

iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.

¶23

iv) Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶24

v) Rule is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. vi) Hearing of the suit is expedited.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Basavraj G Patil 3/3

Gopal Balwant Bhosale. v. Krishna Govind Savarde.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Balwant Bhosale. v. Krishna Govind Savarde.

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

Mrs. Kanchan Dattatraya Dol Vs Mr. Dattatraya Vinayak Dorle

Mr. Narayan Babu Mote Vs Sou. Sumitra Narayan Mote and Ors.

Akkatai Mahavir Gawade Vs Pandurang Pralhad Jagdale (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs Malutai Pandurang Jagdale and Ors.

Mahadu B. Mane Vs Shankar G. Patil and Ors.

Chintaman Purushottam Sahasrabudhe (Since Deceased through LHRs) Vs Manju Vasant Kenia and Anr.

The Municipal Corpn. of the City of Pune Vs Nalini Shivram Kulkarni