Shri Ramchandra Genu Jadhav & Anr. v. Shri Vasant Rambhau Shevkar & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Mar 2010
- Bench
- R V MORE
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of, in terms of Consent Terms with no order as to
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In pursuance of the permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Petitioner No.1 effected sale of the suit property in favour of Petitioner No.2 on 25th August, 1988. Therefore, the Petitioner No.1 has no interest left in the suit property. The Petitioner No.2 and the…
Judgment
Shri Ramchandra Genu Jadhav & Anr. Versus Shri Vasant Rambhau Shevkar & Ors. ....Petitioners ...Respondents. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Vinod Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Vilas Tapkir, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A, 1B & 2. P.C.: CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 30th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
The Petitioner No.1 intended to sell the suit property to Petitioner No.2. Since permission under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is required, they applied for the same before Sub-Divisional Officer, Jr. Sub-Division, Khed. By an order dated 18th July, 1988 the said permission was granted and therefore, the predecessor in title of Respondent No.1 & 2 preferred a revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The said revision was allowed by the order impugned in the petition and therefore, the Petitioners filed the present petition. 2
Operative part
In pursuance of the permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Petitioner No.1 effected sale of the suit property in favour of Petitioner No.2 on 25th August, 1988. Therefore, the Petitioner No.1 has no interest left in the suit property. The Petitioner No.2 and the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 i.e. Respondent No.1a and 1b as well as Respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and filed Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked as Exhibit “X” for identification. The Petitioner No.2, Respondent Nos. 1a, 1b and Respondent No.2 are present before the Court and they admit the contents of the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are signed by the Petitioner No. 2, Respondent Nos. 1a, 1b and Respondent No.2 along with their respective Counsel. The undertaking given by Respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) & Respondent No. 2 in clause 9 of the Consent Terms is accepted. The Petition is disposed of, in terms of Consent Terms with no order as to costs.
(R. V. MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of, in terms of Consent Terms with no order as to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 43.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Mar 2010. The bench was R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.