: 1 : 6438-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6438 OF 2011 Vasant Shridhar Kulkarni .. Petitioner v/s. Smt. Suchita Ramesh Kulkarni & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. In a partition suit filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli being R.C. Suit No.544 of 1976, the petitioner was successful in getting 1/9th share in regard to the property which was sought to be partitioned in the said suit. Thereafter, father of the present petitioner expired. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that he had a right in the estate of the father. The petitioner accepted that on account of said decree in the partition suit, the petitioner got his share in the said property, which was the subject matter of the said partition suit : 2 : 6438-11-wp=.sxw and thereafter the father of the petitioner has expired. The petitioner thereafter filed a Special Civil Suit No.60 of 1986 in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli to establish his rights in the father’s property. That suit was dismissed on 31st July, 1989. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No.481 of 1989 which also came to be dismissed on 3rd March, 1989. It was partly allowed. However, the petitioner was unsuccessful in establishing his rights in a complete manner. The petitioner instead of challenging the said decree dated 3rd March,1989 filed an application in the nature of a final decree application in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palus. The final decree application was filed and in the said proceedings one of the person applied for deletion of her name from the said proceedings. That application was granted, against which this petition has been filed. 2. If the entire effort of the petitioner was to establish the right in the estate of the father, the petitioner ought to have filed proceedings challenging the decree dated 3rd March,1989. That has not been done. In my view, the present proceedings filed by the petitioner would not help him to establish his rights and to that extent, this petition is improperly filed. : 3 : 6438-11-wp=.sxw 3. Having considered the order impugned, I am inclined to observe that no interference therein is required. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)