Partly allowed

Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable v. Suresh Sitaram Sable and Others

Bombay HC2 Dec 2021CA/9032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowed the appeal partly based on a compromise between parties. The original suit decree declaring sole ownership was set aside, and the suit was decreed in accordance with compromise terms effecting a partition of the land.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal partly allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed per compromise terms Exhibit 'X'; decree to be drawn and registered.

Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable Vs Suresh Sitaram Sable and Others — Partition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

911-sa-385-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

911 SECOND APPEAL NO.385 OF 2021
WITH CA/9032/2021 IN SA/385/2021

¶4

TULSABAI RADHAKISAN SABLE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

SURESH SITARAM SABLE AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gaikawad Pandurang M.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. G. K. Muneshwar

¶8

CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE: 02.12.2021

¶9

ORDER:-

¶10

.Parties have arrived at compromise. Present appellant is the
original defendant No.3. Present respondent No.1 is the original
plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 2004 before learned
Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna for declaration
and perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed on 26.03.2012.
Thereafter, the present appellant – original defendant No.3 filed Regular
Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012 and it came to be dismissed by learned
Adhoc District Judge-3, Jalna on 24.08.2017. The second appeal was
filed challenging the concurrent findings. It is to be noted that the Trial
Court, while decreeing the suit had declared that the plaintiff is the
owner of 2 H land in Gut No.235 situated at village Nanja, Tq.

¶11

(1)

¶12

911-sa-385-2021.odt

¶13

Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna and the consequential prayer of injunction was
allowed. Now, by way of compromise, it has been contended that
original defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties and they be
deleted. Thereafter, the appellant and respondent No.1 have agreed and
consented that the suit land was purchased solely by one Radhakisan
Sable in the name of respondent No.1 and himself. It is then stated that
the appellant through Radhakisan and Suresh have equal share and it
appears that they have partitioned the same in view of clause No.3 of
the terms. It is to be noted that the Trial Court had declared only the
plaintiff as the sole owner of 2 H land from Gut No.235 and now the
division is made of 1 H each between the appellant and the respondent
No.1. Under such circumstance, in view of Maharashtra Amendment to
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the consent terms deserves to
be registered. In view of the same, following order is passed :-:-

¶14

ORDER

¶15

I)The Second Appeal stands partly allowed.

¶16

II)The judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge
Junior Division, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna in Regular Civil Suit
No.110 of 2004 on 26.03.2012 and the judgment and decree
passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012 by learned Adhoc

¶17

(2)

¶18

911-sa-385-2021.odt

¶19

District Judge-3, Jalna on 24.08.2017 are hereby set aside.
Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 2004 stands decreed in terms of
compromise terms Exhibit- ‘X’.

¶20

III)The decree be drawn accordingly. The decree so drawn be
sent to Sub Registrar, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna or any competent
authority under the Indian Registration Act having jurisdiction
over the lands situated in village Nanja, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist.
Jalna for its registration, if any, as per the law.

¶21

IV)Civil application No.9032 of 2021 stands disposed of.

¶22

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

¶23

scm

¶24

(3)

Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable v. Suresh Sitaram Sable and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable v. Suresh Sitaram Sable and Others

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

Ankush Shahaji Ghugre and Another Vs Motiram Ramji Pandhare and Others

Ankush Shahaji Ghugre and Another Vs Motiram Ramji Pandhare and Others

Sundarabai Balkrushna Thorat Lrs Dattatraya Lrs Chaya and Others Vs Babaji Kondiba Mapari and Others

Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable Vs Suresh Sitaram Sable and Others

Gangaram Deoba Gade Died through Lrs. Laxmibai Gangaram Gade and Ors. Vs Datta Mohanao Gade and Ors.

Raosaheb Ganga Kokare Vs Navnath Ragnath Dhakane and Others