Advocates:
['ANJANWATIKAR VINAY B', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'GP', 'RANE GIRISH S', 'PATIL MAHESH H']

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7245 OF 2018

Bebabai w/o Dashrath Hatkar,

Age-68 years, Occu-Agriculturist,

R/o Jamde, Tq. Parola,

Dist. Jalgaon

– PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Sakubai Trembak Waghmode,

Age-65 years, Occu-Household

and Agriculturist,

R/o Krushnapuri, Barkhedinaka,

Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.

2. Padmabai w/o Daga Khatal,

Age-62 years, Occu-Agriculturist,

R/o Ambode,

Tq. And Dist. Dhule

3. Mirabai w/o Dhana Devkate (Hatkar),

Age-60 years, Occu-Hoiusehold,

R/o Jambora, Tq. Dharangaon,

Dist. Jalgaon

4. Muktabai w/o Bhika Gote,

Age-59 years, Occu-Household,

R/o Tambepura, Jalgaon,

Dist.Jalgaon

5. Sarubai w/o Govinda Devkate,

Age-58 years, Occu-Household,

R/o Tambapura, Jalgaon,

Dist. Jalgaon

6. Khatabai w/o Ramesh Sarad,

Age-57 years, Occu-Household,

R/o Krushnapuri, Varkhadinaka,

Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon,

khs/FEB.2019/7245-d

- 2 -

7. Vimalbai w/o Bhurmal Henmane,

Age-55 years, Occu-Household,

R/o Kholsar, Tq.Parola,

Dist. Jalgaon,

8. Dayaram s/o Mukta Patil,

Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

R/o Udane, Tq. And Dist.Jalgaon

9. Dattatraya s/o Motilal Chaudhari,

Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

R/o Mukti, Tq. And Dist. Dhule

10. District Collector, Jalgaon,

District Collector Office,

Akashwani Chowk, Jalgaon

11. State of Maharashtra

– RESPONDENTS

Mr.V.B.Anjanwatikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.N.T.Bhagat, learned AGP for for respondent Nos. 10 and 11.

Mr.M.H.Patil, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

Mr.G.S.Rane, Advocate for respondent No.9.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 13/02/2019

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

The petitioner / original defendant is aggrieved by the

impugned order dated 27/04/2018 by which the Trial Court has

rejected application Exh.101 filed by this petitioner in Spl.Civil Suit

No.136/2012, has been rejected.

khs/FEB.2019/7245-d

- 3 -

2.

Leave to delete respondent No.8. Deletion be granted

forthwith.

3.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

4.

This case pertains to Spl.C.S. No.136/2012 wherein the

original pleading of the petitioner in her W.S. is that there was a

"Sauda Pavati" (Agreement to Sell). She desires to add a paragraph

below paragraph No.16 in her W.S. to make out a case that the

"Sauda Pavati" was actually a "nominal Sauda Pavati". Therefore, the

issue is whether such an amendment could be permitted to enable

this petitioner to convert her stand from admitting a "Sauda Pavati”

to making the Sauda Pavati appear as a nominal Sauda Pavati.

5.

A co-defendant Dattatraya in the suit at issue, who is

respondent No.9, is aggrieved by the request of the petitioner for the

reason that he has instituted a Spl.Civil Suit No.9/2014 seeking

specific performance in pursuance to the Sauda Pavati as Rs.

15,25,000/- have been already paid to the present petitioner

Bebabai. He further adds that on the one hand, a Sauda Pavati can

be an executable document and on the other hand, a nominal Sauda

khs/FEB.2019/7245-d

- 4 -

Pavati is not an executable document. He also submits that in the

Sauda Pavati, there is no word "nominal" before the words "Sauda

Pavati".

6.

The petitioner Bebabai has participated in RCS No.136/2012

which is instituted by her step daughters seeking partition and

separate possession. Bebabai claims to have married deceased

Dashrath after his first wife passed away. Her portion of the suit

land was given to her by Dashrath towards maintenance. On

account of the constant pressure of her step children and other

relatives, she got fed up and on the advice of well wishers, she has

entered into a Sauda Pavati with respondent No.9 Dattatraya. In her

written statement filed in the first suit, she has defined the document

as a “Sauda Pavati” and now contend