Baban Bhagwant Sonawane Thr Poa Nandu Baban Sonawane v. Shivram Anant Sonawane And ORS
bipin prithiani 22-wp-4154.22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date:
2022.06.30 17:00:33 +0530 BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI WRIT PETITION 4154 OF 2022 Baban Bhagwant Sonawane ...
Petitioner
Versus
Shivram Anant Sonawane and Ors.
...
Respondents ****** Mr. Suhas B. Rohile for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
****** CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE : 29th JUNE, 2022 P.C. :- .
The petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit 208 of 2017. 2.
The plaintiff has not annexed copy of the plaint. 3.
However, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the suit is brought seeking partition of agricultural land admeasuring 39 acres which according to the plaintiff was held by 9 persons belonging to the Mahar community. The plaintiff claims that the said land was allotted by the State Government to the said 9 persons to hold the same as watandars.
4.
According to the plaintiff, one of the 9 persons to whom the watan was granted was Krishna who is his grandfather. 5.
On such premise, the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants, who presumably are either the 8 other watandars, or persons claiming through them, from alienating the suit property.
bipin prithiani 22-wp-4154.22.doc 6.
Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff has not demonstrated prima-facie case to establish his right to the suit property which is Gat 400.
7.
The Appellate Court has noted that the suit plaint is blissfully vague. The plaintiff has not produced any material to show that Gat 400 was given to his ancestor as watan land. The name of the ancestor is not disclosed in the plaint and moreover nothing is placed on record to show that the watan land was held in common by his ancestor and the ancestors of the defendants. It is further noted that the plaintiff has not given the genealogy or family tree nor has he disclosed when the common ancestor has died.
8.
Nothing is brought to my notice to suggest that the prima-facie findings recorded by the Appellate Court, and which are consistent with the findings recorded by the Trial Court, suffer from any infirmity, as would be impel me to exercise writ or supervisory jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
[ROHIT B. DEO, J.]