IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12900 OF 2024

DISTRICT - PUNE

In the matter of Civil Revision U/s.

115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908
AND
In the matter of Judgment passed
by the Appellate Bench of District
Court on 26/10/2023 in Special
Civil Suit No. 75/1998
AND

In the matter of the Judgment and

Order passed by the Appellate
Bench of District Judge-1, by A.A.
Ghariwale .

And

In the matter of the Code of Civil

Procedure,1908 as amended upto
date.
1.Dattatrya Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- 35 years , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
2.Balasaheb Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- 26 years , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
3.Deepak Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- 22 years , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
4.Keshav Maruti Gokhle ]
Age:- 35 years , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
5.Madhukar Maruti Gokhle ]
Age:- 35 years , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
6. Babulal Laxman Gokhle (deceased ) ]
Since deceased by heirs and legal ]
Representatives

6(a). Chintamania Babulal Gokhle ]

Age:- Adult , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
6(b)Balasheb Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- Adult , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
6(c) Deepak Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- Adult , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
6(d) Saraswati Babulal Gokhle ]
Age:- Adult , Occupation:- Agriculture ]
6(e) Sushila Manikrao Sable ]
Age:- 45 years , Occupation:- Household ]
Residing at Sablewadi, P:ost Paul ]
Taluka:-Khed, District :- Pune ]
6(g). Nanda Bhagwan Sandbhor ]
Age:- 32 years , Occupation:- Household ]
Residing at STKAR Sthal East ]
Rajgurunagar, Taluka –Shed ]
District:- Pune ]
6(h) Sharda Sanjay Gaikwad ]
Age:- 29 years , Occupation:- Household ]
Residing at Khandarpuri ]
Taluka;- Shirur, District :- Pune ]
6(i) Prabhavati Rajendra Mandhare ]
Age:- Adult , Occupation:- Household ]
Residing at Shikrapur ]
Taluka;- Shirur, District :- Pune ]
7. Maruti Laxman Gokhle ]
Age:- 60 years , occupation :- Agriculture ]
Residing at Nimgaon, Taluka:- Khed ]
District:- Pune ] ….Applicants
(Orig. Plaintiff)

VERSUS
1. Atmaram Babulal Date ( Deceased ) ]
Through his legal heirs
1. Vijay Atmaram Date ( Deceased) ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Household ]
1A (i) Smt. Surekha Vijay Date ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Household ]
1A(ii) Miss Deepa Vijay Date ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Education ]
1A (iii) Rahul Vijay Date ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Education ]
All residing at Bungalow No. 4, ]
Sector No.27, Pradhikaran ]
Nigdi, Pune- 4 ]
1B. Vilas Atmaram Date ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Business ]
1C. Prakash Atmaram Date ]
Age Adult , Occupation :- Business ]
Both are residing at :- Saraswati , ]
Plot No. 4, Hingane, Pune ]
1D. Vimal Jaysingh Bahirat ]
1E. Saraswati Atmaram Date ( Deceased) ] ..Respondents
Through her heirs 1A- A-D ] Orig.
Defendants
TO
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER
HONOURABLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF

THEAPPLICANTS ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:

By way of present Civil Revision Application the Applicants

seeks to challenge Judgment dated 26/10/2023 in C.R.A No. 7
of 2018 ( Old appeal no. 807/2012 ) passed by Adhoc District
Judge-1, Khed Ragurnagar, District-, inter alia uphold trail
court judgment dated 30/06/2005 in special Civil Suit No.
75/1998 . The Appellate Court has not taken consideration said
facts.

A. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a

litigant, according to the Supreme Court disqualifies such
litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved
out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the
process of Court by deceiving it. The Applicants further states
that the lis does not become final until the fruits of the decree
are released. For that, the litigation must run its full course,
including the appeal and the revision. In the meanwhile,
developments take place, Hon’ble Court may judicially noted
and the relief moulded accordingly. The respondent did not
disclose the material facts necessary to decide the bona fide and
reasonable requirement. But the suppressed fact must be a
material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it
would have affected the merits of the case.

B. That the Defendant No. 1 & 2 are the real brothers and
the Plaintiff no. 1 & 3 are the son of deceased Defendant. The
Plaintiffs and defendants constitute joint Hindu Family.
C. The suit lands block Nos. 305, 342 and 343 jointly with
Bajirao Shripati, Sarjerao, Bhagwant, and Popat purchased
from Chandrachud Family in the year 1963 out of the joint
family funds for the benefit of the joint family funds the lands
was never divided by metes and bound and all purchasers
possessed the land jointly. The purchased the suit lands from
the original owners and since the lands were very vast in size it
was not possible to one single individual to purchase entire area
from Chandrachud family due to financial constraints. The
Defendant No.1 had not contributed the price of the land .

D. That subsequently consolidation scheme is made

applicable and the lands were converted into block numbers.
Most of the land is grazing grass land and negligible portion of
the same is under cultivation where Bajari and Groundnuts
Crops are taken and some of the portions of the land is
earmarked for acquisition by the Government.

E. The Plaintiffs have requested the Defendant No. 3 not to

purchase the land, however, the Defendant No. 3 purchased the
land from the Defendant No.1 on 30.07.1995 and the Defendant
No.2 has given his consent for the said Sale Deed.

F. The Defendant No.1 &2 are the real brothers and

members of Hindu joint family of Appellant .The Original
Defendant No.1 has 1/7th share in the suit properties and
Plaintiffs have 1/7th share each in the suit premises. The
Original Defendant No.1, had no legal necessity to sell the suit
land as he was in good financial position. The Sale Deed was
not in the intrest of joint family members therefore Sale Deed
dated 03/07/1975 is void and not binding upon the Appellants.

G. The Defendant No. 3 has appeared in the matter and filed

written statement at Exh. 37 (Pages 63 to 71 of paper Book).
The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared in the matter and
suit premises proceeded ex-parte against them. The Defendant
No. 3 died during the pendency of the suit and vide exhibit 38
by order dated 31/07/2000 legal heirs of the Defendant No.3 are
brought on record.

H. That the suit lands are purchased by the Defendant No.1

out of the alleged joint Hindu family fund and for benefit of
alleged joint Hindu family from original owner. It is further
contended that all the joint owners who have purchased the land
from Chandrachud family, have sold out their share to different
purchasers.

I. The Appellants states that all four lands are standing in

the name of Defendant No1, as a Manager of the Joint family
and the Mutation entry No. 2532 showing name of Defendant
No.1 as a Maneger of joint family and all the lands were
inheriated by the Defenant No. 1& 2 from their father Laxman
Deoji Gokhle.

J. The Financial Position of Plaintiff and Defendant No.

1& 2 was quite better and Defendant No.1, purchased the suit
property from joint family funds

K. The Lower Court has framed issues at Exh. 65 The

Lower Court has recorded the finding on issue Nos.2 to 6 in
favour of the Plaintiffs and held that the suit property is a Joint
Hindu family property of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and
the Sale Deed dated 03.07.1995 executed by the Defendant
No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.3 is void and the Plaintiffs
are entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for and
finding on issue No.1 is given against the Defendant Nos. A to
3E and held that the Defendants have failed to prove that the
suit property was alienated for legal necessity.

L. The Lower court recorded the Evidence a stated in

Exhibit 57 state that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 to 2
constitute joint family and there is no partition of suit
properties. The witness Baburao Hulge also corroborated
during evidence Exhibit 69 that there is joint family property of
the Plaintiff. The Legal Heirs of Defendants No.3 failed to step
into witness box to adduce evidence.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by impugned judgment dated
26/10/2023 in R.C.A No. 7 of 2018 (Old appeal no. 807/2012)
passed by Adhoc District Judge-1, Khed Ragurnagar, District-,
inter alia set aside special Civil Suit No. 75/1998.Hereto annex
Marked Exhibit “A” is the copy of impugned Judgment dated
26/10/2023 in R.C.A No. 7 of 2018 ( Old appeal no. 807/2012
) passed by Adhoc District Judge-1, Khed Ragurnagar, District-
Pune, inter alia alia uphold trail court judgment dated
30/06/2005 in special Civil Suit No. 75/1998. Hereto annex
Marked Exhibit “B“ is the copy of judgment dated 30/06/2005,
passed by JT. Civil Judge Senior Division Pune. The Petitioner
say and submit that in the circumstances set out hereinafter, the
impugned judgment are clearly arbitrary, ultra vires, not
maintainable and/or in excess of jurisdiction, and totally
unsustainable.

The Applicants abovenamed begs to prefer the present Petition

on the following grounds which are without Prejudice to one
another:-

G R O U N D S

a. The Appellate Court have failed to consider

description given in the sale deed in respect of suit
properties is not correct and Defendant No.1 cannot
give valid and legal title to Defendant o.3.

b. The Judgments of the Ld. Trial Court and Appellate

Court have adjudicated the matter without applying
proper principles of law and erred in concluding to
decree the said suit.

c. The Appellate Court failed to consider that suit

Plaintiffs are in possession of suit properties on the
basis of sale Deed. During cross examination it is not
challenged that there is Joint Family of Plaintiffs and
 Defendant No. 1& 2 or there is Severance of Joint
Family. Therefore it is established by the Plaintiffs that
there is joint family of plaintiffs and Defendant No.
1&2.

d. The Appellate court has not appreciated the entire

evidence and during cross examination of Dattatrrya it
reveals that the Defendant No.1 Purchased the suit
properties out of joint family funds.in its proper
perspective and ought have dismissed the Appeal.

e. The Defendants failed to give details as to what was

legal necessity and that he made necessary enquiry and
found that there was legal necessity. The Defendants
failed to prove legal necessity and legal heirs of
Defendant No.3 failed to step into witness box.
f. The evidence of defendant no.1 reveals that having
good financial position and he had no legal necessity .
g. Defendant No. 3-a to 3-e failed to prove that
Defendant no. 1 alienated the suit properties for legal
necessity.
h. The sale is effected by Karta of Joint family and it is
challenged by other members of joint Hindu family
and properties was not alienated for legal necessity
then sale deed dated 03/07/1975 was not binding on
the other members of the family.

i. It is submitted that merely a document coming from a

proper custody is not enough to place reliance upon the
same to the effect that its contents are proved. Once
the Hon’ble Courts have come to the conclusion that
the witness had suppressed several facts and thus ought
to have held that it is inadmissible in Evidence and
ought to have dismissed the suit at its threshold.

j. The Appellate Court has committed errors apparent on

the face of the record.
 k. Appellate Court has failed to apply his mind in
accordance with law and has shown non-application of
mind.

l. The Learned Appellate Court utterly failed to

appreciate properly the true meaning and the legal
effects of the pleadings, submissions and documentary
evidence of the rival parties on record.

m. The Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the

evidence adduced and produced by the Applicant at
all.

n. The reasoning of the Ld. Judge is against the well

settled principals of law and against the principles of
Natural Justice and Equity.

o. Impugned Judgment is clearly arbitrary, ultra vires

without and/or in excess of jurisdiction, and totally
unsustainable.

p. The impugned Judgment is otherwise bad in law,

illegal and against justice, equity and good conscience.

q. Ld. Trial Judge and Appellate Court have not

considered the Judgment cited and referred to by the
Applicant.

1. The Applicants submits that the grant of the stay of the

operation of the impugned judgments (Exhibits A &B)
are necessary to protect the rights of the Applicant. The
refusal to grant the stay as prayed for would cause grave
and irreparable loss, injury and prejudice to the
Applicants which cannot be compensated at all in terms
of money. The grant of the stay would not cause and
prejudice to the Respondents. The Applicants submit
that the balance of convenience is entirely in favour of
 the Applicants . Hence the Applicants submit that the
interim reliefs as prayed for herein be granted.

2. The Applicants have demanded justice but Respondents

have mislead the trail court against the principal of natural
justice has been violated

3. The Applicants submits that he has not filed any other

proceedings in this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court or in other Hon’ble Court in India in
respect of the impugned judgments (Exhibits A& B).

4. The Applicants submits that he has no other alternate

efficacious remedy available to them except the filing of
the present Application.

5. The Applicants says that the present Civil Revision

Application has been filed without any undue delay and
or latches and as expeditiously as possible under the
circumstances of the case.

6. The Applicants craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to

alter, vary or amend the abovementioned grounds of
challenge to the impugned judgment if necessary in
future with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.

7. .The impugned Judgment dated 26/10/2023 in R.C.A

No. 7 of 2018 ( Old appeal no. 807/2012 ) passed by
Adhoc District Judge-1, Khed Ragurnagar, District-, inter
alia set aside special Civil Suit No. 75/1998, Pune. The
Applicants had applied the Certified Copy on 4/11/2023
and received on 04/12/2024 and hence there is no delay
in filing the present Application the Application is in
time.
 8. The Applicants have not received Notice of Caveat from
the Respondents till the date of filing of this Revision
Application .

9. The Applicants have affixed a Fixed Court fees of

Rs.____/- on this Civil Revision Application.

10.The Applicants will rely upon the documents, a list

whereof is annexed herewith.

11.The Applicant therefore prays:

(a) That the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to admit
the Revision Application in exercise of its jurisdiction
under U/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(b) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to quash and set
aside the Judgment dated 26/10/2023 in C.R.A No. 7 of
2018 (Old appeal no. 807/2012) passed by Adhoc
District Judge-1,Khed Rajgurunagar, District-, and alia
uphold trail court judgment dated 30/06/2005 in special
Civil Suit No. 75/1998.

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this

Application, to stay the execution of the Judgment and
Decree dated 28/06/2013 in Civil Suit No. 460 of
2007 passed by the Single Judge of the Court of Small
Causes, Pune as well as the Judgment of the Appeal
Bench of the Hon’ble District Judge bearing Regular
Civil Appeal No. 626 of 2013 decided on 23/11/2023.

(d) For ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c) & (d)

above.

(e) For costs throughout and For such other and further
reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in this facts and circumstances of this case;

Mumbai Dated this day of , 2024.

Advocate for the Applicant Applicant

VERIFICATION

I,_____________ ,the Applicant above named do hereby state

on solemn affirmation that what is stated in paragraphs Nos.1 to
12 of the foregoing Civil Revision Application is true to my
own knowledge and what is stated in Paragraphs Nos 13 to 23
and grounds of the said Applications is stated on information
and belief which I believe the same to be true and what is stated
in the foregoing clauses of the Civil Revision Application are
the prayers and reliefs sought by the Applicant.
Solemnly declared at Mumbai )
This day of March , 2024 )

Before Me

Advocate for Applicant