Bombay High Court
KUM SULOCHANA BARKU PATIL AND ANR.versusSHREE MARUTI BARKU PATIL AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Respondents 6‑8 are necessary parties and the trial court must frame an issue on the nature of the land as either joint family property or a separate allotment to Radhibai Chari Bhagat.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order that impleaded respondents 6‑8 as defendants in a partition suit concerning family property. The respondents claimed they were children of Radhibai Chari Bhagat, sister of the plaintiffs' father, and argued that the land (Survey No. 29/1) was granted to their mother and thus not part of the joint family hotchpotch. The High Court held that respondents 6‑8 are indeed necessary parties and their impleadment was proper. It directed the trial court to frame an issue on whether the land is joint family property of the plaintiffs and original defendants or a separate allotment to Radhibai Chari Bhagat. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether respondents Nos.6‑8 are necessary parties to be impleaded in the partition suit
- Whether land bearing Survey No. 29/1 is joint family property or a separate property allotted to Radhibai Chari Bhagat
Subjects
- partition
- joint family property
- necessary party
- impleadment
- family settlement
- property law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36194
Megha 18_wp_8349_2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8349 OF 2017
Kum Sulochana Barku Patil and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Maruti Barku Patil and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Vilas N. Mali for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Thakur for the Respondents.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 2 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 19 January 2026 passed by the
learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel, impleading Respondent
Nos.6 to 8 as party Defendants to the Suit.
2) I have heard Mr. Mali, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
3) The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition of suit
properties amongst their own family members. Respondent Nos.6 to 8
Page No.1 of 2
2 September 2026
Megha 18_wp_8349_2017
claim to be children of Radhibai Chary Bhagat, who was sister of father
of the Plaintiffs. It is the case of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 that grandfather
had granted land bearing Survey No. 29/1 admeasuring 0-15-2 H to
Radhibai. Thus, it is the case of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 that land bearing
Survey No.29/1 is not a property, which can be considered in the
common hotchpotch for being partitioned.
4) In my view, therefore, Respondent Nos.6 to 8 are necessary
parties in the Suit. Their impleadment is rightly allowed by the Trial
Court. At this stage, Mr. Mali submits that the Trial Court be directed to
frame an issue as to whether land bearing survey No.29/1 is a joint
family property of Plaintiffs and original Defendants or whether it is a
separate property allotted to Radhibai Chari Bhagat.
5) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the Trial
Court to frame an issue as to whether the land bearing Survey No.29/1
admeasuring 0-15-2 H is joint family property of Plaintiffs and original
Defendants or it is a separate property of Radhibai Chari Bhagat (newly
added Defendant).
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 2 September 2026
Date: 03/09/2026 15:51:15
Checking your session…