Allowed

Shri. Vilas Hindurao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Bapurao Hindurao Pawar and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2017WP/8332/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondent to inform the Record of Rights office to replace his name with the petitioners' names regarding the CTS No.175 property, subject to the suit outcome. Crucially, the court modified the lower court's order to prevent creation of third party rights during the suit's pendency.

What did the court decide?

Record of Rights amended to show petitioners' names; creation of third party rights during suit pendency restrained.

Shri. Vilas Hindurao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shri. Bapurao Hindurao Pawar… — Partition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.8332.2017_515.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8332 OF 2017

¶5

Vilas Hindurao Pawar & anr.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Bapurao Hindurao Pawar & anr. … Respondents

¶9

Mr.Pratap Patil for the Petitioners Mr.Chandrakant Yadav for Resp. No.1

¶10

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JULY 24, 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.6.2017 passed by the learned District Judge 2, Karad, District Satara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.48 of 2016 whereby the learned District Judge has

¶13

quashed and set aside the order dated 28.4.2016 passed on application below exhibit 5 in R.C.S. No.196 of 2016 which was in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶14

The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the siblings. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and declaration. In the suit the learned Civil Judge, Junior

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

wp.8332.2017_515.doc

¶17

Division, restrained respondent No.1 temporarily from carrying out further construction of new house in the suit property that is described in para 1(d) of the plaint, till final disposal of the suit against which the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was filed by respondent No.1 and the said appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

¶18

However, the learned Disrtrict Judge directed respondent No.1 i.e., defendant No.1 to give undertaking before the trial Court that he will demolish the construction if the suit is decreed in favour of the suit property described in para 1(d) of the plaint. The said order is challenged by the plaintiffs in this petition.

¶19

In the course of submissions, it is found that the petitioners/original plaintiffs are having their respective houses at CTS No.175 of village Tambave, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is having his house on CTS No.230 of village Tambave, Taluka Karad, District Satara. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that neither the petitioners nor the respondents are disputing that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are having their respective houses on these two plots. However, the houses of the petitioners standing on CTS

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

wp.8332.2017_515.doc

¶22

No.175 is not on their name but it shows the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 as the owner in the record of rights. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 makes a statement on instructions across the bar that the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 has no objection to delete his name from the record of CTS No.175 of village Tambave and substitute the name of petitioners/plaintiffs in his place, subject to the outcome of the final disposal of the partition suit. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 further submits that respondent No.1 has given an undertaking before the trial Court as directed by the learned District Judge to the said extent.

¶23

In view of the above submissions, the following order is passed:

¶24

i) Respondent No.1 shall inform the office of the Record of Rights that in the place of his name, the names of his two brothers i.e., the petitioners are to be substituted subject to the final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No.196 of 2016.

¶25

ii) The above communication shall be done on or before 7.8.2017.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

wp.8332.2017_515.doc

¶28

iii) No party shall create any third party rights in the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

¶29

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Shri. Vilas Hindurao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Bapurao Hindurao Pawar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vilas Hindurao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Bapurao Hindurao Pawar and Anr.

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

Akbar Khan Vs Sahir Hamid and Ors.

Mr. Mukesh Bhanushali Vs the Estate Officer, the Office of the State Manager

Emerson Network Power India Private Limited and Anr. Vs M/S. Pae Limited, Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Murlidharan K.P

Nissagar Samrat Nimkhare Pani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ekopa Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Chairman, Mr. Khushpatraj Havraj Chand and Anr.

Mr. Bhalchandra Dattaram Kuthe and Ors. Vs Mr. Hemant Mangesh Padate