1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3005/2010 Smt. Vimal Madhukar Gole and others. -: VERSUS :- Shriram Sanstha, Umri Itbarpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010. Heard Shri S.S. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent. The petitioners have raised two contentions; First, they were joint lessee holding property as joint tenant from respondent no.1 Public Trust, hence, the exemption certificate issued to the Trust in the year 1967 is totally irrelevant. The second contention is, in the light of the Full Bench judgment reported at AIR 1973 Gujarat 113 (Atmaram Ranchhodbhai .vrs. V. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and others) all Trustees ought to have been joined as parties. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has pointed out that the possession of deceased Chandrabhan on “filler's day” is admitted and proceedings for statutory transfer of ownership to him were initiated and dropped on 30.12.1967. 2 He states that the finding that the landlord satisfied the conditions of exemption under Section 129 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act has become final. He further relies on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported at 2010 [2] Mh.L.J. 476 (Shyamabai Surajkaran Joshi .vrs. Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha), to urge that Gujarat Full Bench has not been acted upon by this Court. It is apparent that order dated 30.12.1967 dropped the proceedings for transfer of ownership to Chandrabhan and that order has not been challenged till date. The contention that present petitioners were/are joint tenants with Chandrabhan has not been specifically raised in the written statement and necessary facts to draw such inference are not pleaded. The judgment of Full Bench of this Court clearly clinches the controversy against the petitioner on the question of joinder of trustees. In this situation, as I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity, Writ Petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.