Mr. Gudusahab R. Mujawar Alias Yunus Mujjawar v. Smt. Janibai Aditwar Bhoir And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2016 Shri Guddusahab R. Mujawar @ Yunus Mujjawar.

... Petitioner.

Versus

Smt. Janibai Aditwar Bhoir & ors.

... Respondents.

--- Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Tushar N. Sonawane, advocate for respondent. --- CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : OCTOBER 5, 2017 P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Respondent.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

1/4

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14/8/2014, the Petitioner is challenging order impleading legal heirs as party defendant to the Civil Suit No. 282 of 2013. In fact, it is the contention of the Petitioner that Keshav Dharma Patil is the owner of the 50% of the share of the suit property. However, the share of Gana Dharma Patil is disputed by the Petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Gana Dharma Patil has expired in the year 1958. The legal heirs of Gana Dharma Patil had filed an application seeking impleadment in the Special Civil Suit No. 282 of 2013.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the purported legal heirs have not strictly proved that they are the heirs of Gana Dharma Patil as they are not in possession of any succession certificate or heir-ship certificate and the possibility that strangers seek impleadment to Special Civil Suit No. 282 of 2013 cannot be ruled out. In fact, the claim of Gana Dharma Patil is not denied by the Petitioner. All that is being denied and challenged is the genuineness of the status of the proposed defendants. 2/4

It would be difficult to adopt such pedantic approach to proceedings thereby calling upon the legal heirs of Gana Dharma Patil to submit strict proof of their being legal heirs of Gana Dharma Patil. That may be a matter of evidence and the same can be led either by the Plaintiff in negation of their claim or by the added tenant or can be put to the witness in the cross-examination. Learned Judge has rightly observed that addition of the proposed defendants would be necessary to decide the dispute on merits and it would be final adjudication of the matter in question.

This court is of the opinion that the added defendants are necessary parties. However, all contentions of the Petitioner are kept open. This Court has not determined the finality of the issues. Hence, the order dated 14/8/2014 does not call for any interference in viewof keeping that issue open. Hence, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

3/4

The parties herein are at liberty to seek expeditious hearing of both the suits. In the eventuality that such an application is made by the parties to the suit, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division shall consider it and do the needful. The Petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged accordingly.

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) 4/4