1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2004 Mahadeo s/o Bapu Thombre, age 42 years, occup. Agri. r/of Nagewadi, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad. Petitioner versus Dattu s/o Janu Thombare, age 47 years, occup. Agril. r/o Nagewadi, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmababad. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------ Smt.M.A.Kulkarni,Advocate,for the revision petitioner. None for the respondent though served. ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : July 23, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 01. Original suit filed by present revision petitioner bearing R.C.S. no.311 of 2003 was for declaration and injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom. In the plaint, it is alleged that the appellant and respondent are cousins. They constituted joint family, but 2 subsequently there was partition and they were in possession of respective separate shares as per the partition. 02. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint, properties alloted to plaintiff-petitioner's share are described. Those are in all 31 Are land. The suit is not for partition, but only for declaration and injunction. 03. Suit was filed on 16.10.2003 and immediately on 18.10.2003 Respondent appeared. On that day compromise pursis was filed at Exhibit 15, stating that at the time of Gudi Padva of 2003, partition had taken place in the presence of panchas as claimed in the plaint. In the circumstances, parties wanted decree in terms of the compromise. 04. However, the learned Civil Judge in his order dated 29.11.2003 has observed that the compromise is in collusion and as such he rejected the compromise and also the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 05. After hearing Advocate Smt. M.A. Kulkarni for the petitioner and considering the fact that it was a suit for declaration and injunction, it does not appear that the suit was filed collusively. The decision in the suit on the 3 basis of compromise would be binding only on parties to the compromise and nobody else. Secondly, total holding of the revision petitioner-plaintiff is so small that it cannot be said that the compromise is a way ought for coming out of clutches of the Ceiling Act. 06. I am, therefore, not satisfied with the observations of the trial court that the compromise filed was by collusion between the parties to the suit and therefore suit should have been rejected on that count. 07. In the result, this revision application is allowed. In view of compromise between the parties, the suit stands decreed in terms of prayer clause (A). Suit and revision application stand disposed of accordingly. pnd/cra71.04 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)