In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing an application to add a party in a partition suit. The Single Judge held that the plaintiff had already added other relatives as parties, making the current addition permissible and the writ petition unmaintainable.
The writ petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp2327.12
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2012
Vithal Tolba Dhaygude ...Petitioner
versus
Manik Tolba Dhaygude and others ...Respondents
Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun V. Rakh h/f Mr. S.V. Mundhe, advocate for respondents 1 and 6
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 25th APRIL, 2013
PER COURT :-
passed by the learned Joint C.J.J.D. Gangakhed thereby allowing application Exh.58 in R,C.S. No. 374 of 2004 filed by the defendant No.7.
Smt. Meera Rani & Ors vs. Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors, reported in
wp2327.12 -2-
2007 STPL (LE-Civil) 21335 MP . He further placed reliance on the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 3109 and the exposition of Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Monomoyee Barmani vs. Smt. Upeswari Barmani and Ors. Reported in AIR 1994 Gauhari 18 and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, defendant No.7 at the most can claim share in the property of her father Manik. It is submitted that share of brothers i.e. original plaintiff Vitthal are to be determined and in their share added party can not ask for share. Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto learned counsel submits that this writ petition may be allowed.
wp2327.12
-3-
Baburao is from the branch of Dharba and Vitthal and Manik are from the branch of Tolba. Dharba and Tolba are no more. Vitthal, the petitioner herein is original plaintiff, who filed suit for partition. Manik and Baburao are defendant nos. 1 and 4 in the suit. Two sons of Baburao, Govind and Dharba are also added parties in the suit as defendant nos. 3 and 6. It is also not in dispute that Vitthal has added son of Manik viz. Bhaskar, as defendant No.2 in the suit. Therefore, the trial court has considered the submissions of the plaintiff that only head of the branches are required to be made party and not branches. However, the court found that already sons of Baburao added as parties defendant Nos. 3 and 6 and also son of Manik viz. Bhaskar is also added defendant No.2 and application filed by Kalawati to add her defendant is allowed. In my opinion, it is not the case of the plaintiff that only heads of the branches are party defendants. However, the plaintiff has added the brother of Kalawati, as party defendant in the suit.
wp2327.12
-4-
parties is undisputed. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no interference is called for. Writ petition stands rejected.
rlj/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing an application to add a party in a partition suit.
Whether the reliance on Mumbai International Airport case is applicable to a partition suit.
If the trial court order is reasonable, whether correction is called for through a writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Meera Rani & Ors vs. Ghanshyam Sharma & OrsReferred¶14
Smt. Meera Rani & Ors vs. Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors, reported in 2007 STPL (LE-Civil) 21335 MP
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.Distinguished¶23
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 3109
Smt. Monomoyee Barmani vs. Smt. Upeswari Barmani and Ors.Referred¶16
Smt. Monomoyee Barmani vs. Smt. Upeswari Barmani and Ors. Reported in AIR 1994 Gauhari 18 · Who else cites this
Vithal Tolba Dhaygude
Manik Tolba Dhaygude
S. S. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
