1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6611 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o Narayan Shinde Petitioner VERSUS Yashwant s/o Dilip Deshmukh Respondent Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th September, 2010 PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by the defendant praying for framing of an additional issue has been turned down by the trial Court in view of the order passed below Exhibit-65 in R.C.S. No.47/2003 on 22.06.2010. The issue proposed by the defendant reads thus: Whether plaintiff became owner of suit land as no permission was obtained under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, prior to execution of sale deed dated 28.01.1991? 2 The suit was presented by plaintiff claiming cancellation of registered sale deed executed on 23.06.1992 in respect of western 81 ares land out of land S.No.106/3 situate at village Niwgha, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff has contended that as the permission required in respect of alienation under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, has not been secured, the sale deed is required to be cancelled. The defendant contends that in 2 respect of sale deed dated 28.01.1991, which is executed in favour of the plaintiff, also requires such permission and unless the plaintiff proves his ownership or entitlement to the property, which forms part of S.No.106, he cannot claim any relief in the suit. 3 Issue No.6 in respect of entitlement for recovery of possession of 81 ares land is already framed by the trial Court. The question posed by defendant, if needs to be answered, would be covered by Issue No.6 and while considering entitlement of the plaintiff to claim relief in respect of recovery of possession, if it is deemed necessary, the Court may deal with the question raised by the defendant in respect of necessity to secure permission, as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in respect of sale deed dated 28.01.1991. The trial Court has rightly turned down the application tendered by the defendant. No interference is called for in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp661110