Bombay High Court
BHARAT BHASKAR BHOIR AND ANRversusVINAYAK JAGANNATH BHOIR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the order allowing impleadment, holding that the proposed defendants' inclusion was unnecessary and would complicate the partition of the disputed property.
Summary
The petitioners, Bharat Bhaskar Bhoir and another, challenged a 9 August 2019 order of the Thane Civil Court that allowed the defendants to implead proposed defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in a partition suit. The original suit sought partition of certain properties, while the defendants filed a counterclaim asserting that Survey No. 7/10 was joint family property and should be considered in the partition. The trial court had permitted the impleadment, but the petitioners argued that doing so would complicate matters because the land had already been alienated and developed. The High Court examined whether Survey No. 7/10 was indeed joint family property and noted that even if it were, the land could be allotted to the plaintiffs' share, rendering the proposed defendants' participation unnecessary. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the writ petition, with no order on costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the impleadment of proposed defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in a partition suit.
- Whether Survey No. 7/10 constitutes joint family property and how its status affects the partition proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order I Rule 10
Subjects
- partition suit
- joint family property
- impleadment
- counterclaim
- CPC
- Order I Rule 10
- land alienation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34729
Megha 21_wp_2545_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2545 OF 2020
...Petitioners
Bharat Bhaskar Bhoir and Anr. (orig. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3)
V/s.
Vinayak Jagannath Bhoir since
deceased through legal heirs-
1/1 Pradeep Vinayak Bhoir and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Kishor K. Malpathak for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sagar Tambe i/b. Mr. Suresh Barne for Respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 21 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 9 August 2019 passed by the
learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, allowing Application at
Exhibit-117 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 2006. By the impugned
order, the Trial Court has allowed Application preferred by Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
Code) and has directed the Plaintiffs to implead the proposed
Defendants in the Suit.
2) I have hard Mr. Malpathak, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Tambe, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.1/1 to 1/4.
Page No.1 of 2
21 August 2026
Megha 21_wp_2545_2020
3) The Suit is filed for partition of the suit properties. The
Defendants have appeared in the Suit and filed a counterclaim
contending that property bearing Survey No. 7/10 is also a joint family
property and in the event of decree for partition, even property at Survey
No.7/10 be also taken up for consideration. It is Defendants’ case that the
property at Survey No.7/10 is alienated by the Plaintiffs in favour of the
proposed Defendants.
4) In my view, the enquiry in the counterclaim would be whether
property at Serial No.7/10 is a joint family property or not. In the event it
is found that the said property is a joint family property, and in the event
the Trial Court proceeds to decide shares, the said land can always be put
in the share of the Plaintiffs. Alienation in respect of the land at Survey
No.7/10 has occurred long before filing of the Suit. In that view of the
matter, entry of the proposed Defendants in the Suit would create
complications especially in view of the fact that land at Survey No.7/10 is
already developed by construction of buildings. Since Survey No.7/10 can
always be put in the share of the Plaintiffs in the event of same being
treated as joint family property, interest of the Defendants in the Suit is
protected.
5) In view of the above discussion, order dated 9 August 2019 is set
aside. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms, there shall be no order as
to cost.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 21 August 2026
Date: 24/08/2026 14:32:53
Checking your session…