Dismissed

Suresh Maruti Thorath v. Hirubai Ganpat Koli and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2021WP/5529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of flat purchasers in a partition suit. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the trial Court erred despite earlier observations in a separate writ order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition rejected and disposed of; contentions including limitation and acquiescence kept open.

Suresh Maruti Thorath Vs Hirubai Ganpat Koli and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp 5529.17.doc

¶2

Ingale

¶3

Digitally URMILA signed byURMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.12.08 19:17:37 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5529 OF 2017

¶6

Suresh Maruti Thorath .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

Hirubai Ganpat Koli and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Bhushan Walimbe i/b Ms.Preeti Walimbe, for Petitioner. Mr.R.S. Datar, for the Respondents No. 1 to 9. Mr.Rohit P. Sakhadeo a/w Mr.Pushkar Nagpurkar, for Respondents No. 10, 11 & 12.

¶10

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 7, 2021

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the common order passed below Exhibits 99 and 102 passed by the trial Court in the pending Special Civil Suit No. 783 of 2011. Briefy stated the facts are, the petitioner is the original defendant No.9 in the Suit. The plaintifs belong to the branch of their common ancestor, Tulshiram. Tulshiram and Namdev are the real brothers. It is the case of defendant No. 9 that the suit property which was a plot of land allotted in lieu of land which was acquired by CIDCO, came to the share of Tulshiram. There was tripartite agreement with CIDCO, heirs of Tulshiram and

¶14

1/4

¶15

wp 5529.17.doc

¶16

defendant No.9 dated 06/05/2009 whereunder the property in question was leased in favour of defendant No.9. Defendant No.9 proceeded to develop the land and constructed the building comprising 14 fats. When the building was almost 90% completed, the plaintifs fled the Suit in 2011 claiming half share in the suit property and for declaration that heirship certifcate in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 5 be declared as null and void. The plaintifs fled application Exhibit 5 for injunction which was refused by the trial Court. The Appellate Court allowed the Appeal challenging the order passed by the trial Court refusing temporary injunction. This Court by order dated 16/02/2015 admitted the petition fled on behalf of the defendant No.9 and stayed the order passed by the Appellate Court subject to the defendant No.9 depositing the amount of Rs.14,50,000/- in the trial Court within two weeks. It is observed that entitlement of the plaintifs would be decided by the trial Court at the hearing of the Suit.

¶17

During the pendency of the Suit & even prior thereto, the fats in question were sold to prospective fat purchasers. The plaintifs fled application Exhibit 99 for impleadment of 14 fat purchasers. The application Exhibit 102 was fled for seeking consequential reliefs against 14 fat purchasers.

¶18

2/4

¶19

wp 5529.17.doc

¶20

The applications-Exhibits No. 99 and 102 came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 20/01/2017. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the order dated 16/02/2015 passed by this Court and observations made therein that the plaintifs have valued their claim at Rs.7,25,000/- and that it would be on the said basis that the equities would have to be adjusted between the parties, he contends that the trial Court erred in allowing the application. In his submission, having regard to the observations made by this Court vide its order dated 16/02/2015, it was not open for the plaintifs to have applied for impleading the fat purchasers as party defendants and in any event, the trial Court committed an error in allowing the applications. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before the suit was fled, fats have been sold to the fat purchasers. Be that as it may, the plaintifs being Dominus Litus fled an application for impleadment of the 14 fat purchasers. The Suit is fled for declaration that the plaintifs have half share in the suit property and for partition. No prejudice is caused to the defendant No. 9 by allowing the application for impleadment of the fat purchasers. In any case, it is always open for the trial Court to consider the efect of the order dated 16/02/2015 passed by this Court at the appropriate stage. I may not be understood to have expressed any opinion

¶21

3/4

¶22

wp 5529.17.doc

¶23

on the merits of the contentions of either of the parties including the order dated 16/02/2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 1775 of 2014. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application for impleadment and consequential amendment. The Writ Petition stands rejected. All contentions including limitation, acquiescence are kept open. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

4/4

Suresh Maruti Thorath v. Hirubai Ganpat Koli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Maruti Thorath v. Hirubai Ganpat Koli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Kantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Haresh Jivandas Matani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Dattatraya Mavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipin Vasant Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sulochana Nagesh Burdekar Vs Sarika Vijay Burdekar and Ors.