1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 555 OF 2009 Shri Rajesh Maruti Madhvi ....Petitioner V/s. Kashinath Thakur Patil & Ors. ....Respondents. ----- Mr. R.A. Thorat, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh S. Datar, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. ------ CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 2 nd MARCH, 2010. P.C: 1. The impugned order does not warrant interference at this stage. 2. Prima facie, the Petitioner/Defendant No.6 allegedly acquired the development rights in respect of entire plot vide an agreement dated 16.11.2004 only from Defendant Nos.1 to 3. 3. The property originally belonged to one Ganpat Patil who had a son and a daughter named Thakur Patil (since deceased) and Smt.Yamuna Patil/Defendant No.3.The said Thakur Patil and Smt. Yamuna Patil/Defendant No.3 would have a half share each in the property. 2 4. Mr. Thakur Patil had two wives. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are his children from his first wife. Defendant No.1 is the second wife of the said Thakur Patil and Defendant No.2 is their son. Prima facie, therefore the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 would have a share in the suit property through the said Thakur Patil. 5. The Petitioner/Defendant No.6 allegedly acquired the rights only from Defendant Nos.1,2 and 3. Admittedly there is transaction between the Plaintiffs and the Petitioner/Defendant No.6. Thus, at the highest, the Petitioner acquired 50% share of Smt. Yamuna Patil and one sixth of the half share of Thakur Patil in the property. Admittedly, the property has not been partitioned. Defendant No.3 has filed a suit for partition in which Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have been impleaded. The said suit is pending. In these circumstances, the rights of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Plaintiff were rightly protected by the trial Court. 6. Mere delay would not confer title upon Defendant No.6. In any event, the delay is not a the nature which disentitles the plaintiff to protection. 7. Even assuming that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the transaction between Defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the one hand and Defendant No.6 on the other prior to August 2004, the Plaintiff had 3 filed the suit in November 2006 after noticing the construction which commenced around 14th August, 2006. Thereafter, the suit was amended to challenge the alleged development agreement dated 16.11.2004. 8. In these circumstances, the Petition stands dismissed.