{"id":168240,"date":"2009-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-12T08:46:20","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T03:16:20","slug":"khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Borde<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n            IN   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 6225 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n     Khanderao s\/o Bhujangrao Babar                           PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     VERSUS\n\n\n     Bharatbai w\/o Shrimant Gomsale\n     & others                                                 RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Shri Takte, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Salunke,\n     Advocate for the petitioner.\n     Shri V.M. Yelnoorkar, Advocate for the respondent no.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     1.\n                  ig           =====\n\n                            CORAM :        R.M. BORDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                      RESERVED ON :        30TH JANUARY, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                    PRONOUNCED ON :        23RD MARCH, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     PER COURT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.    Petitioner – original defendant no.                  2 is raising<\/p>\n
     exception     to    the   order passed below             exh.        74      in<\/p>\n
     Regular     Civil    Appeal no.       20\/2004 by         the      District<\/p>\n
     judge – 1, Nilanga on 13-9-2007.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Respondent no.      1 – original plaintiff instituted<\/p>\n
     the   suit claiming specific performance of                     agreement<\/p>\n
     as well as recovery of possession of the land bearing<\/p>\n
     gat   no.    287 and 297 situate at village Jajnoor, Tq.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
     Nilanga        being           Special        Civil         Suit     no.          181\/98.\n<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff           in        the        suit also claimed relief                 to     the<\/p>\n
     effect        that        the registered sale-deeds bearing                            nos.\n<\/p>\n
     1508     and        1509 executed on 15-9-1997 be adjudged                                 as<\/p>\n
     ineffective          and           inoperative against the                  plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff           stated in the plaint that the property                                 in<\/p>\n
     dispute has been subsequently transferred by original<\/p>\n
     defendant           no.            1     in favour     of        other     defendants.<\/p>\n
\n\n     Apart     from           claiming relief in respect                      of     specific\n\n     performance          of         agreement,           the plaintiff            has      also\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     sought        for        possession of the disputed                      property          as\n\n     well     as\n                    \n                     sought                 declaration\n\n<\/pre>\n
     sale-deeds be declared as ineffective and inoperative
\n                                                                that     the       subsequent<\/p>\n
     as against the plaintiff.                         Plaintiff being a lady, as<\/p>\n
     per     the policy of the State Government in respect of<\/p>\n
     remittance               of        court     fees     by     a     lady         litigant,<\/p>\n
     prevailing          at         the relevant time, the plaintiff                          was<\/p>\n
     not     required              to        pay court     fees.         However,           after<\/p>\n
     proper        contest           the suit presented by the                     plaintiff<\/p>\n
     came     to be dismissed.                    As such, she was required                     to<\/p>\n
     file     Regular              Civil Appeal no.              20\/2004        before        the<\/p>\n
     Court of Additional District Judge, Nilanga, which is<\/p>\n
     pending.        In the pending suit, original defendant no.\n<\/p>\n
     2     presented           an           application     at     exh.         72     raising<\/p>\n
     objection           in respect of payment of court fees by the<\/p>\n
     original        plaintiff.                It was contended that by virtue<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     of      subsequent             notification              dt.        23-3-2000,           the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff          is liable to pay the court fees                            alongwith<\/p>\n
     appeal        as the dispute in question does not relate to<\/p>\n
     matrimonial             matters     as contemplated by the                        amended<\/p>\n
     notification.              Another application was presented                               by<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiff          at     exh.        73      claiming         exemption           in<\/p>\n
     respect            of     payment        of         court      fees.          Both       the<\/p>\n
     applications             came     to     be decided by               the      appellate<\/p>\n
     court         on        21-7-2007.             Application           presented             by<\/p>\n
     defendant          no.     2 \/ petitioner herein was allowed and<\/p>\n
     the     application tendered by original plaintiff                                     came<\/p>\n
     to<\/p>\n
     appellate<\/p>\n
            be dismissed.             In view of the order passed by the<\/p>\n
                        court on 21-7-2007, plaintiff was required<\/p>\n
     to     pay        court     fees on the suit                claim.            Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     however,          presented an application exh.                          74     claiming<\/p>\n
     revision          in respect of payment of court fees.                               It is<\/p>\n
     contended          in     the application by plaintiff that                              the<\/p>\n
     suit     presented             by her is essentially                   for      specific<\/p>\n
     performance             of agreement as well as for recovery                               of<\/p>\n
     possession.              Although        the        relief          claimed        is      in<\/p>\n
     respect           of declaration of the sale-deeds which                               have<\/p>\n
     been         executed           after              entering         into        impugned<\/p>\n
     transaction             with    the plaintiff, the plaintiff                           need<\/p>\n
     not pay ad valorem court fees and the court fees that<\/p>\n
     would        be     required        to        be      computed         shall       be      in<\/p>\n
     accordance          with        the provisions of section 6(j)                           and<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
     not as per provisions of section 6(ha).                        Plaintiff as<\/p>\n
     such     stated     that she would be liable to                   pay        court<\/p>\n
     fees      to     the     tune   of   Rs.6,978\/-           and       necessary<\/p>\n
     modification       in the earlier order was sought for                           by<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Application tendered by plaintiff was objected by<\/p>\n
     the     respondents         herein   contending that              the      total<\/p>\n
     court     fees     that would be leviable               considering            the<\/p>\n
     claim     raised by the plaintiff would be                     Rs.16,580\/-.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     It     is also contended that the subject matter of                            the\n\n     appeal     would\n\n     jurisdiction\n                     ig     exceed\n\n                            of     the\n                                      the pecuniary\n\n                                              court\n                                                               limits\n\n                                                           which         is\n                                                                             of     the\n\n                                                                                   upto\n                   \n     Rs.2,00,000\/-.         Hence, the first appellate court does\n\n     not     have     jurisdiction to decide the appeal.                      It      is\n\n<\/pre>\n
     also prayed to dismiss the appeal for want of payment<\/p>\n
     of     requisite court fees.             The learned District Judge<\/p>\n
     –     1, Nilanga after hearing the arguments advanced by<\/p>\n
     respective       counsel allowed the application presented<\/p>\n
     by     plaintiff \/ respondent no.              1 herein and directed<\/p>\n
     the     original plaintiff \/ appellant before the                          first<\/p>\n
     appellate        court      to pay court fees           considering            the<\/p>\n
     valuation        of the appeal to be Rs.1,52,000\/- as                        well<\/p>\n
     as     further     court      fees   in     respect        of     relief         of<\/p>\n
     possession.         Order passed by the District Judge                         -1,<\/p>\n
     Nilanga        in pending appeal is subjected to                    challenge<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
     in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      I have perused the applications as well as order<\/p>\n
     passed        by     the first appellate court.                I     have        also<\/p>\n
     heard        arguments advanced by respective counsel.                             So<\/p>\n
     far     as     issue in respect of exemption in payment                            of<\/p>\n
     court        fees at appellate stage is concerned, the said<\/p>\n
     issue        is not raised by respondent no.                   1 \/        original<\/p>\n
     plaintiff           before      me.     Therefore, I do not               deem     it<\/p>\n
     necessary           to     consider the issue.          Although          at     the<\/p>\n
     time     of        presentation         of the suit       bearing          Special<\/p>\n
     Civil<\/p>\n
     then,        the<\/p>\n
                  Suit no.\n<\/p>\n
                          plaintiff
\n                                    181\/98, as per the policy prevailing<\/p>\n
                                            was   entitled        for          securing<\/p>\n
     exemption           in respect of payment of court fees.                         The<\/p>\n
     policy has undergone change and in view of subsequent<\/p>\n
     notification              issued        by   the    State           Government,<\/p>\n
     exemption in respect of payment of court fees payable<\/p>\n
     by     the     woman litigant is restricted to                     matrimonial<\/p>\n
     dispute.            Although         an analogy can be drawn              on      the<\/p>\n
     footings           that appeal is continuation of the suit and<\/p>\n
     exemption            which      is     available    at      the       time         of<\/p>\n
     presentation             of    the     suit can also be            said     to     be<\/p>\n
     available           at     the appellate stage, however,                  as     the<\/p>\n
     relevant orders passed by the appellate court in that<\/p>\n
     regard        are        not    subjected    to    challenge          in         this<\/p>\n
     petition,           therefore, this court refrains to go                       into<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
     the issue and offer any comment in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      On     perusal           of the plaint it appears               that      the<\/p>\n
     substantive          relief        claimed by the plaintiff                 is      in<\/p>\n
     respect         of     specific           performance        of       agreement.\n<\/p>\n
     Contents         of        the    plaint      reveal       that       the      total<\/p>\n
     consideration          in respect of transaction was                       settled<\/p>\n
     at    Rs.1,50,000\/-              out    of which     the      plaintiff           has<\/p>\n
     tendered       an      amount of Rs.40,000\/- and                  the      balance<\/p>\n
     amount of Rs.1,10,000\/- was to be paid at the time of<\/p>\n
     execution       of the sale-deed.              Thus, he suit is valued<\/p>\n
     court fees.\n<\/p>\n
     for Rs.1,50,000\/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and<\/p>\n
                          Although the plaintiff has sought relief<\/p>\n
     in    respect         of     declaration        that       the        sale-deeds<\/p>\n
     executed       on      15-5-1997 be declared               ineffective            and<\/p>\n
     inoperative          as against the rights of the                    plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     the said relief claimed is ancillary.                         Although it is<\/p>\n
     contended by the petitioner herein that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     shall     be     required          to     pay ad    valorem          court       fees<\/p>\n
     considering           the         valuation        of      the        subsequent<\/p>\n
     transactions          to     be        Rs.1,22,000\/-       and       Rs.55,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     respectively,          said        contention cannot            be     accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     The     plaintiff in turn claims that the provisions                                of<\/p>\n
     section        6(j) are attracted and therefore, court fees<\/p>\n
     is    required to be computed accordingly.                           Provisions<\/p>\n
     of sections 6(j) and 6(ha) are quoted as below :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
                6.   The amount of fee payable
\n                under this Act in the suits next
\n                hereinafter mentioned   shall be
\n                computed as follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (j) In suits where declaration is
\n                sought, with or without injunction
\n                or other consequential relief and<\/p>\n
                the subject – matter in dispute is
\n                not   susceptible    of   monetary
\n                evaluation and which     are   not
\n                otherwise provided for by this Act
\n                (ad valorem fee payable, as if the<\/p>\n
                amount or value of the subject
\n                matter was [one thousand rupees;])<\/p>\n
                .   In all suits under clauses (a)
\n                to (i), the plaintiff shall state
\n                the amount at which he values the<\/p>\n
                relief sought, with the reasons
\n                for the valuation ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ha) In suits for declaration that
\n                any sale, for contract for sale or<\/p>\n
                termination of contract for sale,
\n                of any moveable     or immoveable
\n                property is void [one-half] of ad
\n                valorem fee leviable on the value
\n                of the property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .     It    cannot     be    said that the      subject         matter        in<\/p>\n
     dispute       is not suceptible of monetary evaluation                       and<\/p>\n
     as    such,       the provisions of section 6(j) of                 the      Act<\/p>\n
     would      not     apply.     Contention of       the      petitioner           \/<\/p>\n
     original         defendant   no.   2 is that as the suit is                   in<\/p>\n
     respect of declaration of sale transaction being void,<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiff      is    required   to pay half           of     the      ad<\/p>\n
     valorem       fees    leviable on the valuation of                property.\n<\/p>\n
     However, in the instant matter, it is to be taken note<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
     of     that        the main relief claimed in the plaint is                              in<\/p>\n
     respect        of     specific performance of agreement.                           In     a<\/p>\n
     suit      presented              by      plaintiff        claiming               specific<\/p>\n
     performance          of      agreement, it is essentially a                        claim<\/p>\n
     between        the        vendor      and vendee        and      the        subsequent<\/p>\n
     transferee          is      required to be impleaded only for                           the<\/p>\n
     purpose of issuing direction to him to join the vendor<\/p>\n
     in     executing          the        registered document.                  It     is    not<\/p>\n
     essential           for     the plaintiff to claim declaration                          in<\/p>\n
     respect        of     subsequent         transactions in               a        suit    for<\/p>\n
     specific performance of agreement.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
             Section 19(a) of the Specific Relief act provides<\/p>\n
     that     the specific performance of the contract may                                   be<\/p>\n
     enforced           against       either party thereto whereas                      under<\/p>\n
     section        19(b) relief can be sought against any                              other<\/p>\n
     person         claiming          under      him    by     a      title            arising<\/p>\n
     subsequently          to the contract, except a transferee for<\/p>\n
     value who has paid his money in good faith and without<\/p>\n
     notice        of     the     original contract.                 In     the        instant<\/p>\n
     matter        the subsequent purchasers are joined as                              party<\/p>\n
     defendants          for securing relief in respect of specific<\/p>\n
     performance.          It is laid down by the Apex court in the<\/p>\n
     matter of Durga Prasad and another vs.                             Deep Chand and<\/p>\n
     others        reported          in    AIR   1954        SC      75     that        while<\/p>\n
     interpreting          the provisions of section 27 of the                              Old<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act    (Act       of    1877)   which     is       comparable           with       the<\/p>\n
     provisions        of    section 19 of the Act of 1963                        to    the<\/p>\n
     effect      that the proper form of decree to be passed is<\/p>\n
     to direct specific performance of contract between the<\/p>\n
     vendor      and      transferee    and         direct        the       subsequent<\/p>\n
     transferee        to join in the conveyance so as to pass on<\/p>\n
     the    title        which   resides      in        him      to     the        proper<\/p>\n
     transferee.         He does not join in any special covenants<\/p>\n
     made between the prior transferee.                      The view expressed<\/p>\n
     by    the Apex court has been re-affirmed in the                              matter<\/p>\n
     of    Ramesh        Chandra Chandiok vs.            Chuni Lal           Sabharwal<\/a><\/p>\n
     reported<\/p>\n
     matter,<\/p>\n
                    in      AIR 1971 SC 1238.           In this view<\/p>\n
                 subsequent purchaser is required to be joined
\n                                                                                  of    the<\/p>\n
     as party to the suit only for the purpose of directing<\/p>\n
     him   to join the vendor in executing the sale-deed                                 as<\/p>\n
     per   the     directions        of the court in              favour          of    the<\/p>\n
     vendee.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    Reliance can also be placed on a judgment reported<\/p>\n
     in    2001(3)       Mh.L.J.       730   in       the      matter        of     Dilip<\/p>\n
     Bastimal      Jain vs.      Baban Bhanudas Kamble.                    This<\/a> court<\/p>\n
     in similar set of facts as in the instant petition has<\/p>\n
     considered        the    issue.     Petitioner in                the      reported<\/p>\n
     matter     has approached the court raising objection                               to<\/p>\n
     the   valuation         of the suit on the similar grounds                          to<\/p>\n
     the   effect that although the consideration amount                                 in<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
     respect      of subsequent sale in the matter is more than<\/p>\n
     Rs.2,00,000\/-           which is beyond pecuniary                   jurisdiction<\/p>\n
     of    the    trial court to entertain the suit, the                             court<\/p>\n
     has asserted jurisdiction.                   The reported matter arises<\/p>\n
     out    of    a     suit        claiming       specific           performance         of<\/p>\n
     contract.          Consideration         prescribed was              Rs.90,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     whereas       properties           in      dispute         were     subsequently<\/p>\n
     transferred        for       consideration of            Rs.4,80,000\/-              and<\/p>\n
     Rs.2,11,000\/-           respectively.           In     a     suit        presented<\/p>\n
     against      the       vendor, the subsequent transferees                         were<\/p>\n
     arrayed      as        co-defendants who raise objection to                         the<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction<\/p>\n
     valuation
\n                   ig  of
\n                            of<\/p>\n
                             the
\n                                  the court as well as in<\/p>\n
                                     suit.        It was        contended
\n                                                                          respect<\/p>\n
                                                                                 by
\n                                                                                          of<\/p>\n
                                                                                         the<\/p>\n
     subsequent        purchasers in the reported matter that the<\/p>\n
     property      in       dispute has been purchased by                     them       for<\/p>\n
     amount      more       than        Rs.4,00,000\/-           and     Rs.2,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     respectively           and    further that there              is     declaration<\/p>\n
     sought      for in respect of sale transaction effected in<\/p>\n
     favour      of co-defendants and as such, plaintiff                             shall<\/p>\n
     be    required         to     pay the court fees             considering            the<\/p>\n
     subsequent        sales       as    well      as     suit        claim     is     also<\/p>\n
     objected on the ground that the court dealing with the<\/p>\n
     matter      does       not    have      pecuniary           jurisdiction             to<\/p>\n
     entertain the suit.             While dealing with the objection,<\/p>\n
     the    learned         Single      Judge of        this      court       expressed<\/p>\n
     opinion      that in accordance with provisions of section<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
     19(b)      of    the    Specific          Relief        Act,         subsequent<\/p>\n
     transferee       is    impleaded      to the suit            only       for      the<\/p>\n
     purpose     of     issuing     direction against               him      for      his<\/p>\n
     joining     with      the    transferor          for      the     purpose         of<\/p>\n
     execution of a conveyance so that valid title can pass<\/p>\n
     in   favour      of    plaintiff in the event of                  passing         of<\/p>\n
     decree     in his favour.           Although declaratory relief is<\/p>\n
     claimed     it is merely superficial and no court fees is<\/p>\n
     required to be paid on such claim.                    The learned Single<\/p>\n
     Judge     has    observed      in     paragraph         no.       14     of      the<\/p>\n
     judgment thus :-\n<\/p>\n
              14.
\n                  igThe learned Counsel appearing
\n              for the petitioner tried to urge that
\n              it was essential for the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
              claim a declaration of invalidity in
\n              favour of the subsequent transferees.
\n              Said argument has no substance.    At
\n              this juncture, it is necessary to
\n              notice clause (b) of sub-section (1)
\n              of section 19 of the Specific Relief<\/p>\n
              Act which starts with the following
\n              words –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “19(1) Except as otherwise provided
\n              by this Chapter, specific performance
\n              of   a contract    may be    enforced
\n              against-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b) any other person claiming                    under
\n              him by a title……..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              .    The   section   speaks of    the
\n              enforcement only. It does not speak
\n              in terms of a decree being claimed<\/p>\n
              against such persons.     As I have
\n              already pointed out hereinabove, that
\n              it is an established law that for
\n              enforcing the decree, all that is
\n              necessary is to implead such person<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
              as a party and the decree is required
\n              to direct such person to be a party
\n              to conveyance to be executed by the
\n              original vendor in favour of the
\n              vendee.   It will have, therefore, to
\n              be held that there was no necessity<\/p>\n
              of claiming any declaratory relief as
\n              against the defendant no. 6 (present
\n              petitioner) and defendant nos.      13<\/p>\n
              and 14. Consequently, there was no
\n              question of payment of court fees in
\n              respect of said relief.     The said
\n              relief claimed was superficial and
\n              unnecessary   in   the    facts    and<\/p>\n
              circumstances of the present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.      Taking into consideration the ratio laid down                              by<\/p>\n
     this     court in the matter cited supra, in the                          instant<\/p>\n
     matter         also       it   can    be    said     that         joining          of<\/p>\n
     co-defendant
\n                     ig    \/    subsequent purchaser to the                   suit      is<\/p>\n
     merely     for securing relief of specific performance as<\/p>\n
     contemplated          by section 19(b) of the Specific                      Relief<\/p>\n
     Act.      Although         the    declaratory        relief        is     claimed<\/p>\n
     against        the    subsequent purchasers the said claim                         is<\/p>\n
     superficial          and no court fees is required to be                        paid<\/p>\n
     in that regard.            Objection raised by petitioner herein<\/p>\n
     therefore        does      not call for any          consideration.                As<\/p>\n
     stated     above, neither the provisions of section 6(ha)<\/p>\n
     nor provisions of section (j) of the Bombay Court Fees<\/p>\n
     Act are attracted in the instant matter and therefore,<\/p>\n
     no     court     fees is required to be paid in                    respect         of<\/p>\n
     declaratory          relief sought for by the plaintiff.                          The<\/p>\n
     objection        raised        that   considering          the     contentions<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
     raised       in the plaint, the suit would be thrown out of<\/p>\n
     pecuniary        jurisdiction     available        to     the      appellate<\/p>\n
     court        for entertaining an appeal, is also required to<\/p>\n
     be     turned       down.   Valuation of the suit in a                matters<\/p>\n
     wherein        claim of specific performance of agreement is<\/p>\n
     raised       shall be the amount of consideration which                        is<\/p>\n
     agreed upon by the parties to the agreement.                         The suit<\/p>\n
     must     be held to be rightly valued under section 6(xi)<\/p>\n
     of     the     Act     treating it as falling under              Article         7<\/p>\n
     Schedule        1     of the Bombay Court fees Act.              I    do      not<\/p>\n
     find     any        substance   in the objection raised               by      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner<\/p>\n
     the     petition
\n                     ig  and, in view of the reasons set out above,<\/p>\n
                            does not call for any            interference           in<\/p>\n
     exercise        of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article<\/p>\n
     227     of     the     Constitution of    India.          Writ       petition<\/p>\n
     therefore stands rejected summarily.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed<\/p>\n
     of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ( R.M. BORDE, J.)<\/p>\n
     dyb\/uniplex\/wp6225.07<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:26:55 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 Bench: R. M. Borde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6225 OF 2007 Khanderao s\/o Bhujangrao Babar PETITIONER VERSUS Bharatbai w\/o Shrimant Gomsale & others RESPONDENTS Shri Takte, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2551,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009"},"wordCount":2551,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009","name":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T03:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khanderao-vs-bharatbai-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khanderao vs Bharatbai on 23 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}