Bombay High Court: Thorat Family's Land Dispute Appeal Dismissed

Quick Summary: The Bombay High Court recently dealt with a complicated family land dispute involving the Thorat family. The court upheld the previous decisions, dismissing the appeal by Sanjay Damodhar Thorat and others against Anjanabai Rananath Thorat's heirs. The case revolved around land ownership, a disputed agreement, and family tensions.

Background of the Case

The case involves Sanjay, Subhash, and Chandrabhagabai Thorat, who appealed against a decision favoring Anjanabai Thorat's heirs. The dispute centers on a piece of land (Gut No.89) in Janephal, Aurangabad, initially given to Anjanabai in a family division in 1983.

The Disputed Agreement

Anjanabai had previously filed a case to declare her ownership and gain possession of the land, which led to an agreement in 1998. The agreement stated that after Anjanabai's death, the defendants would become the land's owners, provided they paid her Rs. 2,000 each year. However, the defendants allegedly did not pay, prompting Anjanabai to file another case in 2006.

"The defendants were supposed to pay Rs. 2,000 per year to Anjanabai as part of the agreement."

Court Proceedings and Arguments

The people appealing argued that the case should not proceed, citing previous dismissals and that it was too late to file. They claimed the land was already theirs due to a family division and the agreement.

Meanwhile, the other side argued that the defendants did not follow the agreement terms, which justified the new case. They emphasized that Anjanabai kept ownership and the right to enforce the agreement.

Judgment by Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme upheld the previous decisions, stating that Anjanabai's heirs had a valid claim. The court found no evidence that ownership was transferred during Anjanabai's lifetime. It ruled that the failure to pay was a new reason to take action.

"The title remained with the plaintiff till her lifetime," said Justice Brahme.

Key Legal Questions

The court addressed two main questions: 1. Whether the 2006 case was valid despite the previous dismissal. 2. Whether the case could challenge the agreement from 1996.

The court ruled in favor of Anjanabai's heirs on both counts, affirming the validity of the case and the enforcement of the agreement.

Summary of the Verdict

The court dismissed the second appeal by Sanjay and his family, maintaining that Anjanabai's heirs are entitled to the land.