1 wp8671.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8671 OF 2010 Mukund Madhukar Patil ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Vilas Madhukar Patil ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr.S.P. Shah, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 21st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. According to Advocate Mr. Shah for petitioner, the reliance placed upon alleged deed of partition dated 01.05.1998 by trial Court and appellate Court, is misconceived. He states that the signature on that document which is infact page from diary is very much denied by the petitioner-plaintiff. He further states that revenue records are also standing in the name of petitioner-plaintiff as per his story in the plaint. Thus, revenue records are not looked into and the fact that signature on 01.05.1998 is denied by him is also overlooked by appellate Court. Merely because his mother and sister accept the alleged document, the document has been 2 wp8671.10 used against the plaintiff. 3. According to Advocate Mr. Natu the signature on deed of partition dated 01.05.1998 is denied for the first time before the appellate Court. He further contends that two lands in dispute are allotted to present respondent on 01.05.1998 and remaining two lands are given to petitioner-plaintiff. After this partition on 01.05.1998, those two lands are mutated in the name of petitioner- plaintiff and thus partition deed dated 01.05.1998 is accepted and acted upon by him. In this situation, he prays for dismissal of Writ Petition. 4. Perusal of judgment delivered by appellate Court does not show any consideration of revenue records. Prima facie, it appears that signature on so called partition deed dated 01.05.1998 is denied by petitioner-plaintiff and this denial is not appreciated by the appellate Court. Even the contention of respondent that the said partition deed was implemented and accordingly the plaintiff has got his name mutated on two lands allotted to him thereunder, is also not looked into. This defence is not looked into even by the trial Court. 5. In this situation, I find that material facts having bearing on 3 wp8671.10 the matter, are not looked into by the appellate Court. The judgment dated 06.07.2010 passed by appellate Court, is unsustainable. The said judgment delivered in M.C.A. No. 11 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. That appeal is restored back to file of District Judge-2, Shahada for taking fresh decision in accordance with law at the earliest. 6. Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/8671.10