1 W.P.7846.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7846 OF 2009 Ashok S/o Maruti Dake, Age: 62 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Kasara Dumala, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. ..PETITIONER VERSUS Papamiya Hajimiya (Deceased) Through his L.Rs. 1. Khaja Zulfikarali Papamiya Sayyed, Age: 68 years, Occup.: Business. 2. Liyakatali Papamiya Sayyed, Age: 64 Years,Occup.: Business, Both R/o Jahagirdar Wada, Sayyad Baba Chowk Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3. Jahur-Begum Khaja Mahemudmiya Shaikh, Age : 72 Years Occup.: Household, R/o Todkar Colony, Bopodi No.2, Thane, District Thane. 4. Nasim W/o Fakirali Patel, Age : 62 Years, Occup. Household. R/o Tilak Nagar, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. Ramchandra Sakharam Tambe (Deceased)Through his L.Rs. 5. Sulochana W/o Ramchandra Tambe, Age: 62 years, Occup.: Household. 2 W.P.7846.09 6. Arvind Ramchanra Tambe (Deceased) 7. Manoj S/o Ramchandra Tambe, Age: 48 Years, Occup. Business, All R/o Near Dr. Satpute, Behind ADCC Bank, Indira Nagar, Lane No.1, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 8. Anita W/o Chandrasen Kamod, Age: 50 Years, Occup.: Household, R/o Kathe Galli, Ganesh Nagar, Nashik, District Nashik. 9. Bank of Baroda, Branch Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner District Ahmednagar. [Notice to be served on Branch Manager] 10. Aliwali-begum Papamiya Jahagirdar, Age : 105 Years, Occup. Household R/o Jahagirdar Wada, Sayyad Baba Chowk Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri.V.S.Bedre,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, Writ Petition is finally decided by this Judgment at the stage of admission. 3 W.P.7846.09 2. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 21st July, 2009, passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangamner, on Exh. 48 of Regular Darkhast No. 57 of 2006. 3. Original Respondent Papamiya is the decree holder in Regular Darkhast No. 57 of 2006. He had secured the decree for redemption of mortgaged property and for possession in suit bearing No. 397 of 1984 against Ramchandra- the mortgagee. The suit was decreed and even Ramchandra’s appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, failed. Ultimately, respondents who are legal representatives of Papa miya initiated Execution Proceeding vide Regular Darkhast No. 57 of 2006. 4. The petitioner appeared in the Darkhast. He said that, Ramchandra was his maternal uncle and had given the suit land to him in exchange of some land he had given to Ramchandra. He said, this was their family arrangement. He said, he was not party to the suit bearing R.C.S.No. 397 of 1984, and so the decree is not binding on him. 5. As if this was not enough, the petitioner even filed a suit being R.C.S.No. 179 of 2004 for declaration and injunction against the respondents. He claimed, the decree in R.C.S. NO. 397 of 1984 is not binding on him. He sought declaration that the judgment and decree in R.C.S.No. 397 of 1984 was binding to him and perpetual injunction for preventing the respondents from entering into suit land. This suit is still pending. 4 W.P.7846.09 6. In the meantime, proceeding in Darkhast continued. Exh. 48 in Regular Darkhast was application of the respondents requesting the Court for executing re-conveyance deed in their favour. This application was allowed. If this order on Exh. 48 is implemented, deed of re-conveyance would be executed before the Sub-Registrar and on paper respondents would be able to show that they have redeemed the land finally and lawfully. This step in the execution proceeding is a formality. The respondents D.H have still to go a long way to secure actual physical possession of the land in question which is apparently with the petition. Thus the impugned order would hardly have any effect on the case of the petitioner, which he has stated in the suit R.C.S.No. 397 of 2004. . So Writ Petition fails. Rule is discharged. Sd/- [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] MTK/ok