1 cra-34.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2003 Gangubai w/o Dagduji Paighan, Age: 80 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Jaipur, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...APPLICANT VERSUS (i) Sow. Shobha w/o Dattatraya Paighan, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Jaipur, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli. (ii) Ku. Seeta d/o Dattatraya Paighan, Age: 6 years, Occ: Nil, minor represented through natural guardian mother Resp. No.(i). 3. Bajrang s/o Sudamrao Paighan, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jaipur (Jere), Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. 4. Nagnath s/o Bhikaji Paighan, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. 5. Vasanta s/o Sudamrao Paighan, R/o. 44 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. As above. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant. Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for respondent Nos.(i) and (ii). Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. ... 2 cra-34.03 CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : The Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the order dated 22-04-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hingoli in Misc. Application No. 41 of 2000. 2. On 13-11-2000 the respondents herein filed M.A. No. 41 of 2000 for appointment of guardian of minor Kumari Seeta and permission to sell minor’s property Gat NO. 726, 813 and 833 situated at Jaipur, Taluka Sengaon District Hingoli. On 22-04-2002 the Additional District Judge, Hingoli allowed the said Misc. Application. Hence, this Civil Revision Application. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that without disclosing the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit 3 cra-34.03 No.338 of 1988, which came to be confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 1993 and also in Second Appeal Stamp No.15486 of 2000, Misc. Application was filed by the respondents for seeking permission to sell minor’s property from land Gat No.723, 813 and 833 situate at Jaipur, Taluka Sengaon District Hingoli. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, such order which is obtained by fraud by not disclosing the correct facts and the facts about the decree passed by the competent Court which is confirmed by the Court, needs interference since it is obtained by playing fraud on the Court. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, by the said decree in R.C.S. No.338 of 1988, 1/3 share was given to the present applicant Gangubai who is grandmother of respondent No.2. Therefore, Counsel for the applicant would submit that this Court may interfere in the Civil Revision Application and quash and set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel 4 cra-34.03 appearing for the respondents submits that it is true that there was no mention in Misc. Application about outcome of R.C.S. No. 338 of 1988, however the fact remains that 1/3rd share as ordered in the said decree has been given to the applicant Gangubai by the Tahsildar. . Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 who are purchasers of the land from Shobha, has tendered a copy of the mutation extract across the bar, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification purpose. Counsel for the respondents submitted that possession of the said 1/3rd share is given to the applicant and therefore, the applicant in no way concern with the remaining 1/3rd share of respondent No.1 Shobha and her minor daughter. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the respondents, once 1/3rd share has been given in possession of the applicant, the applicant has no concern with the remaining portion of the land since other two L.Rs. Of Dattatraya namely Shobha 5 cra-34.03 and minor daughter were in possession of other land and from the said land only, the land is sold by Shobha to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 5. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the respective parties, in my opinion, if 1/3rd share has been given to the applicant and to that effect, possession is also handed over, in that case, whether correct facts were mentioned in M.A. No.41 of 2000 or not, is a separate subject matter and the applicant cannot said to be aggrieved by non disclosure of the said facts in the said M.A. which was filed by Shobha. 6. On perusal of the copy of the mutation extract, it is abundantly clear that 4 Hector 6 Are land i.e. 1/3rd share is given to the applicant. 7. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, this Civil Revision Application needs no consideration. The District Court had jurisdiction 6 cra-34.03 to pass such order and accordingly, order came to be passed. In my opinion, there is no any perversity or error of jurisdiction brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits. Same stands dismissed. Rule discharged. 8. If the applicant has any grievance about the copy of mutation extract which is placed on record and if the applicant has any grievance about non handing over 1/3rd share, she can agitate same before the appropriate Forum. 9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned court, forthwith. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11