Disposed

Vilas Tukaram Pawar v. Ganpat Mugutrao Langute and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2024WP/5063/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition impugning an appellate order in a property suit between successors-in-title of two wives of the deceased. The High Court, without touching merits, directed the Trial Court to decide Suit No.165 of 2021 within one year, kept contentions open and directed status quo.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to decide suit within one year; status quo on suit properties until trial ends; contentions kept open.

Vilas Tukaram Pawar Vs Ganpat Mugutrao Langute and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

27.wp.5063.22.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2022

¶6

Vilas Tukaram Pawar..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ganpat Mugutrao Langute and Ors...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Dhananjayrao D. Rananaware, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:MARCH 05, 2024.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Rananaware, learned Advocate for Petitioner and

¶14

Mr. Talkute, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶15

2. The present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal which reverses the Exhibit “5” order dated 21.10.2021.

¶16

3. Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration and being an owner having preferential right to purchase the Suit properties which have been transferred by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 to Defendant No.5.

¶17

4. Several questions of facts and of law have arisen in the Suit proceedings namely; in view of the fact that the dispute between the parties is infact between the successors-in-title of the two wives of late

¶18

Mr. Mugutrao Langute. Substantial properties have been left behind

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

27.wp.5063.22.doc

¶21

by Mr. Mugutrao Langute over which the dispute has arisen. It is seen
that the parties are all related to each other save and except Defendant
No.5 who is the subsequent purchaser. It is seen that Defendant No.1
is the step brother of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 is the step mother of
the Plaintiff, Defendant No.3 is the step sister of the Plaintiff and
Defendant No.4 is the real mother of the Plaintiff.

¶22

5. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, since the order dated 18.12.2012 is a well reasoned order, the learned Trial Court is directed by this Court to decide the hearing in Suit No.165 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one (1) year from today.

¶23

6. It is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the parties unless if it is utmost necessary due to any emergency / exigency.

¶24

7. Parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Suit proceedings.

¶25

8. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open before the learned Trial Court.

¶26

9. It is clarified that learned Trial Court shall not be influenced

¶27

by any observations made in this order as the same are prima facie in
nature.

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

27.wp.5063.22.doc

¶30

10. Both the parties are directed to maintain their respective status quo as on date in respect of the Suit properties until the culmination of the trial.

¶31

11. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶32

 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶33

Ajay

¶34

Digitally signed AJAYTRAMBAK by AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.03.05 20:14:54 +0530

¶35

3 of 3

Vilas Tukaram Pawar v. Ganpat Mugutrao Langute and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Tukaram Pawar v. Ganpat Mugutrao Langute 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

Devendra Kishor Kale Vs Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors.

Asif Hasmat Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Chandrashekhar Shetty @ Anna vs State of Maharashtra

Shankar Chintaman Sarangdhar Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Anr. vs Sindhudurg Estates Thr Its MD and Anr.

Msl Driveline Systems Limited vs M/S Kshitij Enterprises through Proprietor

Mrs. Naseema Fariduddin Siddiqui vs Mr. Rais Ahmed Siddiqui