HARSHWARDHAN DHANAJI PATIL Vs. VIKAS TANAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Koregave, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent.

(2.) Present Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dtd. 30/10/2023 passed by the learned District Court in Misc. Civil Appeal (MCA) No. 206/2023 upsetting the order dtd. 22/6/2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in Exh. 5 proceedings.

(3.) Briefly stated, some basic facts need to be narrated before I advert to the pleadings in the Plaint and the case of the Plaintiff who is before me. Respondent (Org. Defendant) is aggrieved due to stay granted by this Court on the impugned order. 3.1. Dispute between parties pertains to an area admeasuring 1.83 R out of Gat No. 189 and construction being carried out on the said suit property by the Defendant. Admittedly Gat No. 189 belonged to Dattatraya Gangaram Patil who expired on 25/8/1979 as per Revenue Record. He was survived by his wife Hirabai, one son Dhanaji and six daughters namely Gourabai, Droupadi, Sakhubai, Indubai, Malubai and Nakusha. At this stage, Mr. Patil has drawn my attention to page No. 86 of the Writ Petition and would submit that the suit property originally stood in the name of Satappa, brother of Dattatray and Anubai, his wife. On their demise, the said Gat number was recorded and mutated in the name of Dattatraya G. Patil. Hirabai expired on 22/2/2016 whereas Dhanaji predeceased her on 25/10/2015. Dhanaji Dattatraya Patil is survived by his son Harshwardhan who is the Petitioner (Org. Plaintiff) and two daughters. Curiously Plaintiff filed the Suit on the premise that his claim is in respect of ancestral property belonging to Dattatraya G. Patil without even impleading his own sisters as also the other legal heirs which would be otherwise be entitled to under the six sisters of Dhanaji.