BALASAHEB DATTOBA PAWAR Vs. LALASAHEB DATTOBA PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. In this petition, the Petitioners/original defendant nos. 1 and 2 have requested this Court to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They have requested to modify the order passed by the trial Court thereby refusing to recast the issues already framed in the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 449 of 2001.

(2.) The application to that effect is filed by the defendant no. 1- Balasaheb since deceased through his legal representative Mahesh B. Pawar in a pending suit. Defendant No. 2 - Mahesh is one of the legal representative of deceased Balasaheb and he is also defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity. The trial Court has already framed the issues on 15/02/2013. It was a suit for partition filed by one Lalasaheb Dattoba Pawar present Respondent No. 1 against several defendants. Various properties were described in the schedule 'A ' to schedule 'C ' annexed to the plaint. It consists of immovable properties.

(3.) On one hand, the Plaintiff has contended that suit properties belongs to joint hindu family and hence liable to partition. Apart from other contentions, deceased defendant no. 1 - Balasaheb Dattoba Pawar and no. 2 - Mahesh Balasaheb Pawar have pleaded that some of the suit properties are self acquired whereas some of the properties were bequeathed by Dattoba Pawar comprising land and structures situated at Tal. Karad, District Satara and also movable properties to defendant no. 1 - Balasaheb Pawar. Said Dattoba testator is father of Balasaheb. Copy of the written statement is not filed on record. But we have said so on the basis wordings of issue nos. 4 and 5 framed to that effect by the trial Court on 15/2/2013.