Allowed

Mr. Mihir Gautam Raut and Another v. Shalini Sumant Raut and 20 Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018CHS/708/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a chamber summons to amend a partition suit (Suit No. 825 of 2015) to join additional respondents as defendants, treating the property as coparcenary despite a defendant's claim of self-acquired status, and directed procedural updates across 12 related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Amendment allowed to join Respondents 1-38 as defendants; service directions issued to advocates; other pending notices of motion similarly amended.

Mr. Mihir Gautam Raut and Another Vs Shalini Sumant Raut and 20… — Partition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5-CHS708-18.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 708 OF 2018

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 825 OF 2015

¶6

Milind Sumant Raut…Applicant
In the matter between
Mihir G Raut & Ors…Plaintiffs
Versus
Shalini S Raut & Ors…Defendants

¶7

WITH

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 41 OF 2018

¶9

IN

¶10

SUIT NO. 825 OF 2015

¶11

WITH

¶12

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1775 OF 2016

¶13

IN

¶14

SUIT NO. 825 OF 2015

¶15

WITH

¶16

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 708 OF 2017

¶17

IN

¶18

SUIT NO. 1295 OF 2017

¶19

WITH

¶20

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1775 OF 2016

¶21

Page 1 of 5
11th July 2018

¶22

5-CHS708-18.DOC

¶23

IN

¶24

SUIT NO. 825 OF 2015

¶25

Mr Yatin Malvankar, for the Plaintiff.
Ms Uma S, i/b Dharam & Company, for Defendant No.1.
Mr Ashok V Jain, for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 & 5.

¶26

Mr Vinay Bhate, for Defendants Nos. 10 to 12, 14, 15 & 17 &
Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 708 of 2018.
Mr YS Bhate, for Defendant No.19 & Applicant in Notice of Motion
No. 41 of 2018.

¶27

Mr Wasim Ansari, for Defendant No.18.

¶28

Mr Vasim Shaikh, with Ms Laxmi Jassani, i/b Pravin Mehta &
Mithi, for Defendant No.22.

¶29

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:11th July 2018

¶30

PC:-

¶31

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 708 OF 2018

¶32

IN

¶33

SUIT NO. 825 OF 2015

¶34

1.Not on board. By consent, taken on board. The Chamber
Summons is filed by original 11th Defendant seeking that the
Plaintiff be directed to amend the Plaint to join as Defendants from
Sr. No. 23 onwards, the 38 Respondents named in the cause title of
the Chamber Summons.

¶35

2.The Suit itself proceeds on the basis that several properties,
movable and immovable were coparcenary properties and that the
Karta at the relevant time was one Rajaram Balkrishna Raut

¶36

Page 2 of 5
11th July 2018

¶37

5-CHS708-18.DOC

¶38

( “Rajaram” ). The partition is sought of these coparcenary properties.

¶39

3.The 19th Defendant has independently filed Notice of
Motion No. 41 of 2018. This is pending. The 19th Defendant does
not accept that any of these properties were coparcenary properties.
It is submitted that these properties were the self-acquired
properties of the deceased Rajaram since he was the only son of his
father Balkrishna. Thus, according to 19th Defendant represented
by Mr Bhate, the partition should be of the estate of Rajaram and
should be governed by the statutory provisions of the Succession
Acts i.e. Indian Succession Act read with the Hindu Succession Act.
The order of priority of heirs would of course be governed by the
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act in his submission.

¶40

4.Whatever be the contentions of Defendant No. 19, and
although in a Suit like this it is correctly said that each party is a
plaintiff and each party is a defendant, one must have regard to the
manner in which the Suit is laid. Here, the stand taken by the 19th
Defendant is totally immaterial. The Plaintiff has come to Court
specifically with the case that what is sought is a partition of
coparcenary property. It is pointed out that in a previous Suit No.
143 of 2010, these very Plaintiffs filed Chamber Summons No. 2123
of 2011 seeking impleadment as Party-Defendants. By a detailed
order and judgment dated 14th December 2012 that Chamber
Summons was dismissed and the present Plaintiffs were held not to
be entitled to be joined as Party-Defendants to that Suit. It was held
that they would require to join other coparceners who are also the

¶41

Page 3 of 5
11th July 2018

¶42

5-CHS708-18.DOC

¶43

children of other parties to that Suit and that the present Plaintiffs
would have to value their share in the premises as coparceners.

¶44

5.The stand of 19th Defendant cannot improve or alter the case
of the Plaintiffs. If the Plaintiffs have sought partition of any
properties on the basis of a coparcenary, and this cannot be
disputed, and in fairness is not disputed by the learned Advocate for
the Plaintiffs, then the present Chamber Summons is one that must
be allowed even if this involves some annoyance or inconvenience to
the 19th Defendant and delays her Notice of Motion.

¶45

6.Accordingly, the present Chamber Summons is made
absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶46

7.The Plaintiffs will carry out the necessary amendments and
will join the Respondents Nos. 1 to 38 as party-Defendants after Sr.
No. 22 i.e. from Sr. No. 23 onwards. Reverification is dispensed
with.

¶47

8.For the present, the Advocates for the Plaintiffs will effect
service of the Writ of Summons and other proceedings on the
learned Advocates for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 708
of 2018 and he will take instructions as to which of the newly added
Defendants he is authorised to represent and which he is not. He
will communicate to the Advocates for the Plaintiffs within one
week of service which of the Defendants he is not representing and
the Advocates for the Plaintiffs will then have to serve those
Defendants directly.

¶48

Page 4 of 5
11th July 2018

¶49

5-CHS708-18.DOC

¶50

9. The Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 41 OF 2018:

¶52

10.The Notice of Motion filed by 19th Defendant being Notice
of Motion No. 41 of 2018 will now also need to be amended. Mr
Bhate will make the necessary amendments without need of
reverification joining the newly added Defendants to the Notice of
Motion. These will also be served.

¶53

11.Liberty to all Defendants to Notice of Motion No. 41 of 2018
to file their Affidavits or further Affidavits.

¶54

12.All pending Notice of Motions will have to be amended
accordingly. Similar directions will be issued in Notice of Motion
Nos. 1775 of 2016, 708 of 2017 and 1295 of 2017. All amendments to
be carried out within two weeks from today. In all Notice of
Motions, Reply and Rejoinder to be filed in the Registry.

¶55

13. Liberty to apply.

¶56

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶57

Page 5 of 5
11th July 2018

Mr. Mihir Gautam Raut and Another v. Shalini Sumant Raut and 20 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mihir Gautam Raut and Another v. Shalini Sumant Raut and 20 Others

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

Akhlaque Ahmed Mohammed Vs State of Maharashtra (Applicant)

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Badal Saha and Anr.

Dipti Mahesh Manek Vs Mahesh Khimji Manek

Shalu Moti Bathija Vs Mohan Thakurdas Bathija and Anr. and Malaika Vikram Hinduja (Applicant)

Sunil Pandurang Chavan Vs Kashiram Pandurang Chavan (Deceased) and Pandurang Vishram Chavan (Applicant)

Harish Ramji Singh and Radhadevi Ramji Singh Vs Sunil Ramji Singh