SHRIMATI. KANCHAN BAJRANG POWAR AND ORS vs AAPPA DAGDU POWAR AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

-WP1194-2022.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1194 OF 2022 1. Kanchan Bajrang Powar 2. Nitin Bajrang Powar 3. Vipin Bajrang Powar 4. Shilpa Bajrang Pawar ...Petitioners Versus SANTOSH 1. Aappa Dagdu Powar (deceased) through SUBHASH LRs. KULKARNI Digitally signed by 1A. Bebi Appa Powar SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.03.13 1B. Gajanan Appa Powar 17:48:08 +0530 1C. Amar Appa Powar 1D. Swati Lakhan Vadar 2. Valubai Dagdu Pawar 3. Raju Bhimrav Chikhalikar …Respondents 4. Gangabai Balu Chikhalikar Mr. Sandeep Koregave, a/w Pallavi Karanjkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Chetan Patil, for Respondents. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 12th MARCH, 2025 JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 14th August, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kolhapur, whereby an application (Exhibit-25) preferred by the petitioners 1/16 -WP1194-2022.DOC and defendant Nos.3 and 4 seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence of purported Partition Deed dated 6 th January, 1992, came to be rejected. 3. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated in brief as under: 3.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises, which Late Dagdu Powar, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, had purchased. The plaintiffs asserted that Baburao Powar, the brother of Late Dagdu and the predecessor-in-title of defendant Nos.1 to 4, had no premises to reside. Therefore, Late Dagdu had gratuitously permitted Late Baburao to occupy suit property 1B. Baburao passed away in t