Dismissed

Rajabhau Vasudevacharya Karhade Thr Lrs Yatindra R Karhade v. Sharad Devidasrao Pande and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2013WP/1112/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a revision filed by the petitioner's legal representatives, the High Court upheld the status quo regarding a mutation entry pending the outcome of a civil suit challenging a deed of gift. The court held that the Revenue is bound by the Civil Court judgment and cannot adjudicate conflicting titles in the absence of such a judgment.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.

Rajabhau Vasudevacharya Karhade Thr Lrs Yatindra R Karhade… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 1112.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2013

¶5

Rajabhau Vasudevacharya Karhade - died - Thr. L.Rs. V/s Sharad Devidasrao Pande & Anr.

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 07/02/2013.

¶7

Mr. A.D.Sugdare, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the Revision. The dispute pertains to the mutation entry.

¶10

Mr. Sugdare, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gift deed relied by the present respondent allegedly executed by Subhadrabai is challenged before the Civil Court and the Suit is pending. The learned counsel submits that when the Civil Suit is pending, the revenue authority ought not to have entertained the dispute raised by the present respondent to the mutation entry effectuated in favour of the petitioner. The learned

¶11

2 W.P. 1112.2013

¶12

counsel contends that even Subhadrabai had no right or authority to execute the Gift deed in as much as she was not the absolute owner of the said property. The present petitioner is claiming through Vasudevacharya Karhade, who is his grand father. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner has also not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Revision. According to the learned counsel, the Tahsildar and the Additional Collector had properly considered the effect of the pendency of the Civil Suit.

¶13

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order.

¶14

The respondent is claiming on the basis of the registered instrument of gift, pursuant thereto the orders are passed by the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities are bound by the Judgment delivered by the Civil Court. In case, the petitioner succeeds in the Civil Suit, then the petitioner would get right to apply to the revenue authorities for getting his name mutated in the revenue record.

¶15

In case the Civil Suit is decided in favour of the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner may apply to the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities would consider the said application pursuant to the Judgment of the Civil Court.

¶16

3 W.P. 1112.2013

¶17

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

KNP/W.P. 1112.2013

Rajabhau Vasudevacharya Karhade Thr Lrs Yatindra R Karhade v. Sharad Devidasrao Pande and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajabhau Vasudevacharya Karhade Thr Lrs Yatindra R Karhade v. Sharad Devidasrao Pande and Anr.

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

Rangnath Kishanrao Morale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Anil Devanand Jadhav Vs Pramila John Jadhav and Ors.

Radha Gokul Bondve Vs Sunita Digambar Chavan and Ors.

Narayan Jijaba Mane Vs Machindra Ganpat Salve

Ramesh Shankarrao Mane Vs Divisional Traffic Superitendent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corportion and Another

Rajendra Baswantsingh Dikkhat and Others Vs Narayan Sopan Naikwade