Bombay High Court

SADHNA PRAMOD KUMAR SANCHETIversusRAMLAL KESHARCHAND LODHA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The amendment would have no bearing on the decision; the trial court’s refusal to grant the amendment was correct and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, three women, filed a regular civil suit (No. 103 of 2013) seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral property against their parents, brothers and sisters‑in‑law. During trial they applied for an adjournment to cross‑examine Defendant 5 and later sought to amend the plaint to allege that Defendant 5’s marriage to Defendant 3 had been dissolved by a divorce decree dated 29‑04‑2025. The trial court rejected both applications, holding that the amendment was unnecessary for deciding the partition dispute. On writ petition under Article 227, the High Court examined whether the divorce decree could affect Defendant 5’s rights in the ancestral property and whether the trial court’s refusal could be interfered with. The Court concluded that even if the divorce is final, it does not alter the rights already accrued to Defendant 5 under a prior decree in Suit 286 of 2008, and the amendment would not impact the outcome; consequently the trial court’s orders were upheld and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a decree of divorce between a brother and his sister‑in‑law affects the sister‑in‑law’s right to a share in ancestral property in a partition suit.
Whether the amendment of pleadings to include the divorce decree is necessary for adjudicating the partition dispute.
Whether the High Court can invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the trial court’s refusal of the amendment applications.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 227

Subjects

partition
ancestral property
amendment of pleadings
divorce decree
Article 227
writ jurisdiction
civil suit
cross‑examination

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26039
-1-
WP-6002-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.6002 OF 2026

1. Sadhna Pramod Kumar Sancheti
Age : 57 years, Occu : Household
R/o Kurduwadi, Tq: Madha,
Dist : Solapur

2. Sharmila Sachin Gandhi
Age : 55 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Prabhat Road, Pune,
Dist : Pune.

3. Shubhangi Shikhar Kaushalya
Age : 52 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Gudgaon, Haryana ... Petitioners
(Original Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in
RCS No. 103/2013)

Versus

1. Ramlal Kesharachand Lodha
(Deleted by Ld Trial Court's order dated 19.03.2022)

2. Pushpawati Ramlal Lodha,
Age : 78 years, Occu : Household,

3. Santosh Ramlal Lodha,
Age : 59 years, Occu : Retired,
Both R/o Datta Mandir Galli, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

4. Sudarshan Ramlal Lodha,
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o Subhash Road, Nava Pool,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

5. Savita Santosh Lodha,
Age : 53 years, Occu : Household,
R/o C/o: Mahesh M. Mehta,
99 B, Gulab Niwas, Near Government Hospital,
Post. Gholwad, Tq. Dahanu,
Dist. Palghar.

6. Bhagyashri Sudarshan Lodha,
-2-
WP-6002-2026

Age : 46 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Subhash Road, Nava Pool,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

7. Surjabai Madanlal Tated,
Age :83 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Parali Vaijinath, Tq. Parali Vaijnath,
Dist. Beed. … Respondents
(Original Defendants No.1 to 7
in RCS No. 103/2013)

...…
Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. Ishwar K. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.5
......

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE 2026

ORDER :

1. The petitioners takes exception to order dated

17.04.2026 passed below Exhibit 150 and order dated 13.03.2026

passed below Exhibit 146 by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Beed in Regular Civil Suit No. 103 of 2013.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit

No. 103 of 2013 seeking a decree for partition and separate

possession in respect of suit property against their parents,

brothers and sisters-in-law. According to petitioners/plaintiffs, suit

properties are ancestral properties, and after death of their

grandfather, namely Kesharchand Chunilal Lodha, they were

mutated in name of their father. Later on, their father mutated

those properties in the names of other defendants on the basis of
-3-
WP-6002-2026

so-called partition dated 03.04.1982. The suit is pending

adjudication before Trial Court. While it was posted for cross-

examination of defendant no.5, petitioners moved an application

Exhibit 146 seeking an adjournment to cross examine defendant

No.5, stating that, defendant no.5, who is wife of their brother, has

performed marriage with one Mahesh Motilal Mehta, and they

want to collect documents to bring subsequent development on

record incorporating amendment. The Trial Court rejected said

application, observing that plaintiffs are unnecessarily protracting

the proceedings. Defendant No.5 is attending Court after travelling

a long distance and the matter is at fag end of trial. It is further

observed that there is no dispute that marriage between defendant

nos. 3 and defendant no.5 is dissolved.

3. The petitioners thereafter filed another application

below Exhibit 150 seeking permission to amend plaint and bring on

record that marriage between defendant nos. 3 and 5 has been

dissolved by a decree dated 29.04.2025 passed by Family Court,

Pune in Petition No. A-1076 of 2012. As such, defendant no.5 is no

more a family member of plaintiffs and their brothers. The Trial

Court rejected said application on ground that proposed

amendment is not necessary to adjudicate controversy involved in

suit.
-4-
WP-6002-2026

4. Mr. Ajit Kale, learned Advocate appearing for

petitioners submits that while rejecting petitioners' application

below Exhibit 146, Trial Court observed that petitioners/plaintiffs

can bring an amendment of pleadings on essential facts. However,

when such an application for amendment was filed below Exhibit

150, it has been rejected. According to Mr. Kale, decree of divorce

between defendant nos. 3 and 5 would definitely affect conspectus

of matter. The defendant no.5 would have no right in ancestral

property. Therefore, those events were necessary to be brought on

record.

5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

in Regular Civil Suit No. 286 of 2008, which was filed by defendant

no.5 and her son against defendant No. 3 (husband), a decree for

partition and separate possession has been passed, whereby

plaintiffs therein are held entitled to a share in suit property. That

decree has attained finality. The present suit is instituted by

plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession in ancestral

properties of their father Ramlal. The parents and brothers are

made parties to suit. The decree in suit would govern the rights of

plaintiffs, their brothers and their parents in respect of suit

properties.
-5-
WP-6002-2026

6. In this backdrop, even assuming that a decree of

divorce dissolving marriage between defendant no. 3 and

defendant no.5 is passed, it would have no bearing on rights which

have already accrued in favour of defendant no.5. Apparently,

defendant no. 5 would have a right only in the share of defendant

no.3 in ancestral properties. The defendant no.5 can be cross

examined on point of subsequent events by producing the copy of

decree of divorce. Therefore, this Court finds that proposed

amendment would have no bearing on decision to be arrived in

suit. The Trial Court has rightly considered the relevant aspects of

matter and refused to grant reliefs claimed under applications filed

below Exhibits 146 and 150.

7. In result, this Court finds no reason to invoke its writ

jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India to interfere

in impugned orders.

8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE

Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…