Rajendra Laxman Jadhav v. Laxman Rama Jadhav And ORS

*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.601 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14511 OF 2019 IN WP/601/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13665 OF 2015 IN WP/601/2009 RAJENDRA LAXMAN JADHAV

VERSUS

LAXMAN RAMA JADHAV AND ORS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri K.R.Doke Advocate for Respondents 1 to 6 : Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar ...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 20th December, 2019 Per Court:

I have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. The only issue involved in this matter is whether, by the impugned order dated 13.11.2008, the Trial Court has rightly refused to delete issue no.1 and rightly deleted issue no.2 from RCS No.334/2006. Issue nos.1 and 2 read as under :- "१.

ववददनदवववममळकतमहतयवयचदवमडललपवररतअसलयवचनरसद कनलनआहनकवय?

२.

पमतववददकय.

१नदवववममळकतमहसवकषवनसयपवमदतकनलद असलयवचनरसदकनलनआहनकवय?"

*2* It is conceded that defendant no.1 is the father of the plaintiff as well as defendant 2. It is undisputed that the father has passed away. Insofar as issue no.1 is concerned, the plaintiff claims that the said issue be deleted. Apparently, the suit is for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 are biological brothers. The deceased defendant no.1 is the father of these two brothers. The moment the plaintiff demands partition, it is necessary that the suit property must be proved to be a joint family property meaning that it has to be an ancestral property. Since the suit rests on this foundation, the Trial Court, by the impugned order, has rightly refused to delete issue No.1. Insofar as issue No.2 is concerned, it is also undisputed that it is nobody's case that defendant no.

1 purchased the property from his income. The case of defendant no.1 is that he paid the purchase price to purchase the property after being declared as a protected tenant. It is, therefore, apparent that issue no.2 was wrongly framed by the Trial Court and has rightly been deleted by the impugned order. This Writ Petition, being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Since RCS No.334/2006 was stayed by this Court and is pending for the last 13 years, the Trial Court shall decide the said suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or before 30.06.2020, by giving highest priority to this matter. The litigating sides are precluded

*3* from seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed off.

kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)