SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 24473

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sarang V. Kotwal, J
Concord Co-operative Housing Society – Appellant
Versus
Amedmal Bhatewada (deceased) – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2022 | WRIT PETITION NO. 6701 OF 2022 | CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2022 | WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 13161 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.S. Godbole, S. M. Gorwadkar, Anil Anturkar, R. D. Soni, Virag Tulzapurkar, Surel Shah, Mayur Khandeparkar
For the Respondents: Shon Gadgil, Umesh Mankapure, Sugandh Deshmukh, Irvin D’Souza, Vaibhav Thorve, Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Karan Parmar, Hitanshu Jain, Chaitanya Nikte, Sumedh Ruikar

A decree for partition of government-assessed land is effectively final; the application to send a precept to the Collector for effecting partition is ministerial and not subject to limitations.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 54 - Land Revenue Code - Legal heirs dispute over property ownership following the demise of a prior owner. The court discussed the validity of prior transactions and the authority of the Collector in partition proceedings. Key issues included the sufficiency of documents and whether the initial claims were abandoned. The court concluded that the issuance of a precept to the Collector was a ministerial act and not barred by limitation. (Paras 29-49)

(B) The decree in a partition suit is final when it pertains to land assessed to government revenue, and the proceedings do not return to the court once the Collector acts on a precept. (Paras 31-34)

Facts of the case:
Parties contended ownership of land due to varying historical claims and an auction purchase made in 1939. The legal heirs of the deceased owner argued against the authority of the housing society to enact property documentation, while claimants from previous transactions sought to reaffirm rights.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the preliminary decree for partition remained pending as no final decree had been enacted; thus, legal heirs' claims do not automatically abate due to the original plaintiff's death. The precept directed to the Collector to partition land was deemed lawful.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the establishment of title by the petitioners, the legal heirs' standing in court, and implications of limitations on reprising historical claims due to death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the execution of a partition decree involving government-assessed estate is ministerial, and the rights established by a preliminary decree remain valid and actionable by heirs of the original plaintiff.

Result: All applications and petitions were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common issues among several applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties involved in civil applications. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. locus standi of applicants in disputes. (Para 10 , 12 , 18 , 20)
4. reminders for partition under c.p.c. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 34)
5. final order upheld by the court. (Para 49 , 51)

JUDGMENT:

1. All these matters are decided by this common judgment because all the parties agree that all these matters involve common questions of law and are based on the common history regarding the facts and the disputed facts. In all these matters, notices were issued for final disposal. All the parties were duly served with such notices and learned Counsel appearing before me agree that the matters can be decided finally at this stage.

2. I have heard Shri G.S. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants in CRA No.285/2022, Shri S. M. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in WP No.6701/2022, Shri Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(St) No.13161/2022, Shri R. D. Soni, learned counsel for the Applicant in CRA No.406/2022, Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Surel Shah, and Shri Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel , for the respective contesting Respondents.

3. C.R.A. No.285/2022 is preferred by Concord Co-operative Housing Society and its Chairman & Treasurer. The society claims to be the owner of the property.

4. Writ Petition (Stamp) No.13161/2022 is filed by Venkatesh Landmark, through its Partners, who are developing the property by making construction on the property.

5. C.R.A. No.406/2022 is filed by Yashcon Urban Development LLP, through its Partner. The Applicant claims to be owner of a part of the subject properties.

6. Writ Petition No.6701/2022 is filed by one of the members of the Concord Co-operative Housing Society.

7. The contesting Respondents, in all these matters, claim to be the legal heirs of one Amedmal Indrabhan Bhatewada. In all these matters, the Applicants/Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.4.2022 passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Civil Misc. Application No.1658/2021. In C.R.A. No.285/2022, further prayers are made for permission to file certain documents which were not available at the time of passing of the impugned order in the Court of 10th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.

Subject properties :

8. The dispute is about the following properties :

a] Land bearing Survey No.214, Hissa No.1/1 admeasuring 00 Hectare 97 Ares + pot kharaba 0 Hectare 02 Ares, assessed Rs.0.94, situated at village Lohegaon, Taluka– Haveli, District–Pune.

b] Land bearing Survey No.214, Hissa No.1/4 admeasuring 1 Hectare 15 Ares, assessed Rs.1.06/-, situated at village Lohegaon, Taluka–Haveli, District–Pune.

(Both these properties together are hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject properties’).

9. Brief history and facts :

i. The subject properties were originally owned by one Bapu Kashiba Devkar. He died on 27.3.1939. After that, those subject properties were held by his heirs Shankar Bapu Devkar and Kisan Bapu Devkar. Their names were entered by Mutation Entry No.1942.

ii. Amedmal filed Small Causes Suit No.4658/1935 against Shankar Bapu Devkar for recovery of money. The suit was decreed.

iii. Darkhast No.560/1937 was filed by Amedmal for executing the decree in Suit No.4658/1935, in which half undivided share of Shankar was attached and was put up for sale in execution.

iv. On 19.12.1939, Amedmal Bhatewada purchased Shankar’s share in the subject properties in the Court auction. His name was added in the Other Rights column in the record of rights by Mutation Entry No.2027, but, it was without possession.

v. On 20.1.1940, the sale was confirmed by the Executing Court and the Sale Certificate No.65/1940 was granted to the decree holder Amedmal.

vi. On 1.9.1940, Mutation Entry No.2027 was made on the basis of the sale certificate and Amedmal’s name was recorded in Other Rights column.

vii. In 1944, Amedmal Bhatewada filed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top