1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2098 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2098 OF 2011 *** 1. One Vatsalabai filed Regular Civil Suit No.31 of 2008 for declaration that present petitioner is not adopted son of her deceased husband and mutation entry obtained by him is illegal. During pendency of that suit Vatsalabai expired. Present petitioner sought his own substitution in place of deceased Vatsalabai and the trial Court has rejected the prayer of present petitioner. 2. Shri Patil contends that this rejection is not in accordance with law. He further contends that one Dattu claiming to be brother of Vatsalabai had filed similar application but that also has been rejected. 3. The rejection of prayer of Dattu is not relevant for consideration of present controversy. The interest of present petitioner was hostile to the interest of deceased Vatsalabai. Trial Court has, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2098 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. therefore, rightly rejected his application. However, that does not mean that defences available to present petitioner are lost. He can always point out that person (if any) allowed to come on record as legal heir of Vatsalabai is not such legal heir. However, that exercise pertains to merits of the suit. 4. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, petition is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:25/03/2011. ans/2098