(1) WP 2464.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2464 OF 2009 Tulsabai Eknath Chavan Through Power of Attorney Anna Trimbak Chavan Petitioner VERSUS Anubai Vithoba Chavan and others Respondents ..... Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. V.H. Sangole, Advocate h/f. Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent no.6-a Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent nos.6-b to 6-f and 7 and 8. None present for the other respondents though served ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 24.4.2007 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhoom in Execution Proceedings (R.D. no.29 of 1997). 3. The application was filed by the petitioner alongwith other three judgment debtors alleging that (2) WP 2464.2009 the decree holders shall be precluded from adducing the evidence pertaining to earlier agreement of sale. 4. The decree for preferential right to acquire the property was put to execution. The decree holders sought execution of the sale deed to the extent of the share of the petitioner and others. In order to determine the reasonable price of the said share as required under section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the decree holders sought leave of the executing Court to adduce evidence pertaining to the sale deed/agreement dated 17.9.1991 executed by the petitioner and other two judgment debtors in favour of the other judgment debtors. The petitioner and other judgment debtors objected adducing of evidence in respect of the said sale deed/agreement dated 17.9.1991 on the ground that it was not sale transaction between the parties to the suit. 5. Considering the purport of sub section (2) of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the determination of the reasonable price can be undertaken by the Court on basis of application made in this behalf. If the decree holder is/are not (3) WP 2464.2009 ready to acquire the interest for the consideration so determined, then the Court may direct such person to pay the costs of the application. Here is a case when the decree holder wanted to purchase the share as per the price which may be determined by the executing Court. There appears no error committed by the executing Court while allowing the proof of sale deed/agreement dated 17.9.1991 executed by the petitioner alongwith other two judgment debtors in favour of the judgment debtors nos. 1 to 3. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity, arbitrariness or illegality. The petitioner is however at liberty to adduce independent witness regarding the price of the share which is sought to be acquired by the decree holder. 6. In the result, the Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp