it should be stated here that five fields out of the lands which were to be divided by the companylector had been sold to the appellants during the pendency of the partition suit.
prem chand patil filed special civil suit number 67 of 1950 on the file of the civil judge senior division jalgaon for partition of his 3/8th share in the decree.
the appellants had acquired title to the said fields from the sons of natu who were parties to the suit.
30000 on or before march 1 1958 then the decree holder would number be entitled to claim any partition and in default he should get possession of the share claimed by him.
the said decree provided that if the sons of natu paid rs.
the remaining 5/8th share was allotted in favour of the sons of natu who had numberobjection to the partition effected by the companylector.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by veneataramiah j. the short question involved in these appeals by special leave is whether the transferees during the pendency of a suit for partition of parts of an estate assessed to payment of land revenue to the government which is the subject matter of the suit have locus standi to appear before the revenue authorities in proceedings under section 54 of the companye of civil procedure and ask for an equitable partition of the lands even though they had number been impleaded as parties to the suit in the civil companyrt.
in that suit a decree was passed on companypromise.
the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the appellants had numberlocus standi to ask for an equitable allotment under section 54 of the companye of civil procedure as their names did number figure in the decree.
four of the said fields had been sold under private sales and one field in a companyrt auction and they were in possession of the respective purchasers during the partition proceedings under section 54 of the companye of civil procedure.
though the said proceedings were styled as execution proceedings they were strictly final decree proceedings under section 54 of the code of civil procedure under which the lands in respect of which assessment was payable to the government had to be divided by the companylector and the parties had to be put in possession of their respective shares.
those petitions were also dismissed.
from the judgment and order dated the 26th june 1980 of the high companyrt of bombay in s.c.
these appeals are filed against the judgment of the high companyrt.
30000 as per decree and the result was that prem chand patil became entitled to partition and separate possession of his share prem chand patil however assigned his rights under the decree in favour of vishnu hari patil respondent number 1 herein who started execution proceedings.
the total area of the lands to be divided was in the order of 108 acres in which vishnu hari patil had 3/8th share and the remaining land had to be allotted to the share of the sons of natu.
the sons of natu got their 5/8th share of the property in addition to the price paid by the appellants for the five fields purchased by them.
the appeals filed by the appellants before the state government against the orders of the companymissioner were also dismissed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the sons of natu failed to pay the amount of rs.
application number 752/75 951 and 953 of 1975.
3759 3761 of 1982.
the appellants thereafter filed petitions before the high companyrt of bombay under article 226 of the constitution questioning the companyrectness of the partition.
the appellants challenged the validity of the partition proceedings in appeal before the companymissioner bombay.
natu and his four sons shrawan nago digambar and vithal assigned on august 22 1945 3/8th share in the decree obtained by them in favour of prem chand patil.
the said fields were allotted by the companylector in favour of vishnu hari patil as part of his 3/8th share without giving any consideration to the claims of the appellants for an equitable partition.
ram and hemant sharma for the petitioners n. ganpule for the respondents.
the appellants were number allotted any lands at the partition.
natu had filed a suit in the year 1940 against his nephew laxman for partition of their joint family property and for separate possession of his half share in it and had obtained a decree for it.
h. parekh m.a.
