Dismissed¶17

Ganesh Chandrakant Gholve v. Manoj Raosaheb Darade and Others

Bombay HC15 Sept 2025WP/11180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; impleadment of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff; unprobated and unproved will; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 802 relied on; trial court orders dated 06.01.2025 upheld; no interference; writ petition dismissed; Gut No.184; Kondabai; plaintiff No.1-A and No.1-B; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Will in the present matter is undisputedly neither probated nor proved before any court of law; the petitioner will have to establish the will deed once the same is disputed by the legal heirs of the deceased. ¶15

Ganesh Chandrakant Gholve Vs Manoj Raosaheb Darade and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents no.5 to 8, the natural legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff Kondabai, could rightly be brought on record to contest the partition suit, notwithstanding the petitioner's claim to be the sole legal heir under an unprobated will deed.

¶12

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner would have exclusive rights over the properties mentioned in the will once he establishes the will in the court.

¶16

Key takeaways

Respondents no.5 to 8 are the natural legal heirs of the deceased and have been taken on record as such; their legal right to contest the proceedings as the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be faulted with and the trial court has rightly allowed the application.ratio¶16
There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Arun R. Pedneker, J. — Writ Petition No. 11180 of 2025, decided 15.09.2025: In a suit for partition and separate possession of agricultural land Gut No.184 originally filed by plaintiff Kondabai (since deceased), the trial court by orders dated 06.01.2025 allowed respondents no.5 to 8, the natural legal heirs of the deceased, to be brought on record. The petitioner, arrayed as plaintiff No.1-B, claimed sole heirship under a will deed and objected that the heirs ought to have applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Held: the will being neither probated nor proved before any court, the petitioner must establish the will deed once disputed by the legal heirs (relying on Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 802); the petitioner would gain exclusive rights over the will properties only upon establishing the will; meanwhile the natural legal heirs' right to contest the proceedings as legal heirs cannot be faulted and the trial court rightly allowed their applications; no interference warranted. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

1 wp11180.2025

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:25028

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

37 WRIT PETITION NO. 11180 OF 2025 GANESH CHANDRAKANT GHOLVE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

MANOJ RAOSAHEB DARADE AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure

¶8

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 15.09.2025

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the plaintiff – Kondabai in respect of the agricultural land Gut No.184. Due to old age, she died and the present petitioner and respondent no.9 are brought on record i.e. the present petitioner is arrayed as plaintiff No.1-B and respondent no.9 is arrayed as plaintiff No.1-A on record in the suit. Thereafter, the respondents no.5 to 8 / original applicants filed applications for bringing themselves on record in the suit. The trial court by the impugned orders dated 06.01.2025 allowed the applications to bring respondents no.5 to 8 / original applicants on record of the suit.

¶12

The learned counsel submits that the present petitioner has a will deed in his favour by the deceased plaintiff – Kondabai and, as such, the petitioner alone is the legal heir of the property

¶13

2 wp11180.2025

¶14

and that respondents no.5 to 8 / original applicants ought to have filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.

¶15

Undisputedly, the Will in the present matter is neither probated nor proved before any court of law. The petitioner will have to establish the will deed once the same is disputed by the legal heirs of the deceased ( Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 802) .

¶16

Respondents no.5 to 8 / original applicants are the natural legal heirs of the deceased and, as such, they have been taken on record as the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner would have exclusive rights over the properties mentioned in the will once he establishes the will in the court. As of now, legal right of respondents no.5 to 8 / original applicants to contest the proceedings as the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be faulted with and the trial court has rightly allowed the application. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

¶17

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶18

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

¶19

marathe

Ganesh Chandrakant Gholve v. Manoj Raosaheb Darade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Chandrakant Gholve v. Manoj Raosaheb Darade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Datta Deosthan Trust Vedant Nagar Savedi vs Shri Murlidhar Eknath Rishipathak

Shree Datta Deosthan Trust Thr Its Trustees Sanjay Kshirsagar vs Muralidhar Eknath Rishipathak and Others

Shree Datta Deosthan Trust Thr Its Trustee Secretary vs Milind Govind Kshirsagar and Others

Shivram Namdeo Kathoke vs Bhalchandra Ablu Koli and Ors.

Dattatraya Tikaram Dalvi Vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and Others

Navnath Baban Belote Vs Supriya Ganpat Walunj