JUDGMENT - Smt. DESAI RANJANA, J.:---Rule. By consent. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent 4 waives notice. Respondents 1 to 5 and 5 are served. A.G.P. waives notice for respondent 6.

3. By consent, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

4. In this petition, the petitioner have challenged order dated 22nd March, 2001 passed by the Tahsildar, Khed. Pune.

5. Shortly stated the facts are as under:

Respondent 1 filed suit for partition being Regular Civil Suit No. 223 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, Rajgurunagar. This petition arises out of the darkhast proceedings taken out in the said suit. The petitioners are the sons of one Dongarmal Shelot, who is original defendant 1 in the suit and respondent 3 in the present petition. Respondent 2 is original defendant 2. Respondent 4 is original defendant 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in Regular Civil Suit No. 223 of 1971.

6. The plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 are brothers and defendants 4, 5 and 6 are their sisters. The suit for partition was decreed on 19th June, 1987. The trial Court held that the suit properties described in Schedules "A" and "B" are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 have 8/35th share each and defendants 4, 5 and 6 have 1/35th share each in the joint family properties. The Court directed that the landed properties be partitioned through the Collector under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short) and household properties and open space be partitioned through the Commissioner appointed in execution proceedings.

7. Defendant 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 877 of 1987 in the District Court, Pune. The District Court, Pune, modified the trial Court's order. It directed that the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 shall have ¼th share each in the suit property and defendants 4, 5 and 6 will not get any share in it. With these modifications of the trial Court's decree, the appeal was dismissed by the District Court by its order dated 7th October, 1994.

8. Defendant 4 filed Darkhast proceedings being Darkhast No. 21 of 1995 for partition on 20th April, 1995. Darkhast was sent to the Collector for execution and the Collector issued notice to the parties.

9. The petitioners' case is that they are purchasers of the shares of the plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendant 2. They have purchased these shares under the sale deeds dated 20th July, 1995 and 24th July, 1995. They are, therefore, owners of ¾th share of the property and they are also ready to purchase the share of defendant 4 as per the law. It is further their case that defendant 1 had executed a power of attorney in favour of petitioner 1 for appearing in darkhast proceedings.

10. According to the petitioners, the District Land Record Officer issued notices to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and intimated to them that the work of partition of the property will go on, on 9th November, 1995 as per the Court's order. The petitioners then made an application to the Collector, Pune, on 11th December, 1995 requesting that they may be joined as parties to darkhast proceedings. According to the petitioners, the Taluka Land Record Office, Khed, intimated to the petitioners that their application cannot be considered and the partition will be effected as per the Court's order.

11. The petitioners then filed Misc. Application No. 15 of 1995 in Darkhast No. 21 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed. They prayed that their names may be inserted in the ownership column of the properties in Schedule "A" of Darkhast No. 21 of 1995 and Darkhast be proceeded with. By order dated 13th November, 2000, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, rejected the said application. He was of the opinion that it is the Collector who had to decide the question relating to the par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document