Allowed

Kumar Bhimrao Davane v. Martand Keshav Dabhade Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2022WP/2484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for impleadment in execution proceedings, noting decree holders abandoned their claim in his favor.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the prayer for impleadment was quashed and set aside, permitting the petitioner to participate in the execution proceedings.

Kumar Bhimrao Davane Vs Martand Keshav Dabhade Since… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP-2484-2022.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC

BHARAT

DASHARATH PANDIT

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.03.08 15:14:46 +0530

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2484 OF 2022

¶7

… Petitioner.

¶8

KUMAR BHIMRAO DAVANE

¶9

V/s

¶10

MARTAND KESHAV DABHADE
(Since deceased through
Legal heirs)
A) Smt. Nanda Martand Dabhade & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar for the Petitioner.

¶12

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATE: MARCH 07, 2022

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1]Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, even in
execution proceedings, Petitioner, if permitted to participate, he shall
take appropriate steps in getting the notarized Relinquishment Deed
appropriately stamped andregistered. Said statement is accepted.

¶16

2] In the aforesaid background, my attention is invited to
Exhibit-99 moved by the decree holders in Regular Darkhast No. 92 of
2011 wherein decree holders have abandoned their claim in execution
as a notarized agreement in favour of the present Petitioner is
executed by decree holders. Vide impugned order passed below
Exhibit-42, Executing Court in Regular Darkhast No.91 of 2011 has
rejected prayer of the Petitioner for impleadment on the ground that

¶17

1/2

¶18

WP-2484-2022.doc

¶19

above document i.e. Relinquishment Deed is not a registered
document and appropriate stamp duty is not paid.

¶20

3]As far as observations in the impugned order are concerned,
needless to state that original decree holders have abandoned their
claim in favour of the Petitioner as is apparent from the pursis
tendered by them in Darkhast. Whether the Petitioner, under
unregistered Relinquishment Deed, has lawfullygained any right could
be looked into by the Executing Court while deciding maintainability
of the executing proceedings at the behest of the Petitioner. However,
prima facie it appears that, Petitioner’s claim is supported by decree
holders. As such, since the prayer is not objected by decree holders it
should have been granted by the court below.

¶21

4]That being so, order impugned is quashed and set aside with
permission to the Petitioner to participate in the execution
proceedings. Needless to clarify that the Court has not interfered with
the reasoning furnished in the order impugned on the issue of
evidentiary value of notarized document dated 21/3/2016. Whether
such execution is maintainable at the behest of the Petitioner can be
gone into independently by the Executing Court after appreciating the
same.

¶22

5] With the above observations, Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶24

2/2

Kumar Bhimrao Davane v. Martand Keshav Dabhade Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Bhimrao Davane v. Martand Keshav Dabhade Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

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

Mrs. Sheetal Nikhil Ptil Vs Mr. Nikhil Bhagwat Patil

Shri. Baban Dadabhau Dhoble and Ors. Vs Shri. Piraji Rakmaji Dhoble and Ors.

Geeta Jala Rathod Vs Jayantilal Chogalal Doshi and Ors.

Kaikhushroo Alias Kaki Phiroze Noble Since Decd. Thr Legal Heir Vs Subhash Dhanraj Sankla and Ors.

Pushpa Shashikant Shinde Vs Smt. Sarswatibai Pardeshi Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Anr.

Anand Prakash Anand Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.