Dismissed

Manikrao Yadavrao Pathade v. Chabubai Pandurang Pawar Died Lrs Lata Babasaheb Gadhave and Others

Bombay HC6 Mar 2018WP/2400/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed by a petitioner seeking to amend his Written Statement in two suits for declaration of title. The court rejected the petitions, holding that the onus of proof lies with plaintiffs, the facts of ownership were known to the petitioner for decades, and no explanation was provided for the delay in raising the defense.

What did the court decide?

Petitions WS No. 2391/2018 and 2400/2018 are dismissed.

Manikrao Yadavrao Pathade Vs Chabubai Pandurang Pawar Died… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP/2391/2018 & ANR

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2018 MANIKRAO YADAVRAO PATHADE VERSUS

¶5

DNYANESHWAR DATTATRAY WAYAL AND OTHERS

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2400 OF 2018 MANIKRAO YADAVRAO PATHADE VERSUS

¶8

CHABUBAI PANDURANG PAWAR DIED LRS

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Doke Kishor R. AGP for Respondents 2 to 5 : Shri Yadav S.R.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: March 06, 2018

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 9.2.2018, by which, the trial Court has rejected his application Exhibits 79 and 93 respectively, filed in the two suits praying for leave to amend the Written Statement. Contention is that the details about how the defendant became the owner of the land needs to be better explained and hence, leave to amend the Written Statement was sought.

¶13

The petitioner is the same defendant No.5 in RCS No.468 of 2012 and 647 of 2012, respectively. In both these suits, the

¶14

WP/2391/2018 & ANR

¶15

¶16

respondents / original plaintiffs seek a declaration of ownership and title over the suit property. The petitioner has filed his Written Statement in September, 2012 and while praying for the dismissal of the suit, has set out his pleadings to indicate his ownership. The State authorities, who are also defendants, have filed their Written Statement in October, 2012 and have putforth the issue as regards how the defendant has lost his land in acquisition proceedings and being project affected, he was allotted the suit land, by which, he has become the owner of the said land. These events are of 1986.

¶17

I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous for two reasons. Firstly, that the onus and burden of proving ownership has already been cast upon the plaintiff by the trial Court while framing the issues and the State authorities have putforth specific contentions in their Written Statement indicating how this petitioner has become the owner of the suit land after the procedure laid down in law was followed. Secondly, that these developments date back to 1986 and are within the knowledge of the petitioner. There is no explanation putforth in application Exhibits 79 and 93 as to what were the circumstances that prevented this petitioner from putting forth the contentions set out in the proposed

¶18

WP/2391/2018 & ANR

¶19

¶20

amendment, when the Written Statement was filed in 2012. The fact which the petitioner knew for 26 years, could have been putforth in the written statement.

¶21

Even otherwise, the factum about the ownership of the petitioner has been placed before the trial Court through the Written Statement filed by the State authorities and as such, I do not find that it would be necessary for the petitioner to amend the Written Statement.

¶22

Considering the above, both these petitions are dismissed.

¶23

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶24

akl/d

Manikrao Yadavrao Pathade v. Chabubai Pandurang Pawar Died Lrs Lata Babasaheb Gadhave and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikrao Yadavrao Pathade v. Chabubai Pandurang Pawar Died Lrs Lata Babasaheb Gadhave and 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

Narayandas Nawalrai Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao Sonajirao Danve Vs Dist.Dy.Registrar C.S.Jalna and Ors.

Shobha Rangnath Chindhe @ Shobha Bhagwant Bakal Vs Shankar Ambadas More and Others

Parmeshwar Kushaba Namde Vs V.G. Shirolkar and Others

Irani @ Saraswatibai Baswantappa Mathpati and Another Vs Sulanbai Sambayaappa Mathpatii and Others

Gangaram Sidhu Kale Vs the Range Forest Officer Sangamner and Others