1 17-RA.278-22+1.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 278 OF 2022 IN SA/650/2003 SATYABHAMABAI BABASAHEB PAUL VERSUS RAMESHWAR BABASAHEB PAUL AND OTHERS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5488 OF 2024 IN CA/9377/2023 ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. K. S. Chavan. Ms. Pooja S. Aarote h/f Mr. S. S. Choudhari. Advocate for Respondent No.1/Appellant in SA : Ms. Priyanka N. Matlane. Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Ms. Bhimrao Rathod. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 10.10.2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective parties. 2. By my previous order, I have ensured that all parties to Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1989 should be before Court. By way amendment they are brought on record. They are served and except respondent No.5 Kushavartabai the contesting parties are represented by respective lawyers. 3. My attention is adverted to order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 26.08.2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 2 17-RA.278-22+1.odt Diary No.28461 of 2019 in the matter of Satyabhama Vs. Rameshwar and others. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Chavan that in view of liberty given by Apex Court, present review has been filed seeking clarification and modification in the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in Second Appeal No.650 of 2003. 4. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that learned counsels for the contesting parties have no objection for the clarification sought by the applicants to the extent of land sold in favour of the applicants’ predecessor Satyabhamabai. 5. It reveals from record that respondent No.6 Bhagirathibai was a party in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1989. She was purchaser of 1 H. 30 R. of land from Gut No.254 alienated by Kushavartabai respondent No.5. She alienated the said land to Satyabhamabai on 22.05.1990. Neither death of Bhagirathibai nor sale deed on 22.05.1990 was brought to the notice of Trial Court. This suppression perpetuated in the appeals also which were preferred against decree passed by the Trial Court. 6. A separate interest created in favour of the applicants due to compromise recorded in Regular Civil Appeal No.182 of 1994 was brought to the notice of Apex Court for the first time. 3 17-RA.278-22+1.odt In such a peculiar situation, applicants were given liberty to file review application. 7. Respondent No.1 Rameshwar is the owner of land Gut No.254. The alienation made by him through his mother during his minority were subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1989 filed by his father Babasaheb. On 28.10.1994 suit was decreed. Being aggrieved, Regular Civil Appeal No.177 of 1994 was filed by respondent No.4 Shivaji being purchaser of 1 Hector and 60 R. of land and Regular Civil Appeal No.182 of 1994 was preferred by respondent No.6 Bhagirathibai. Satyabhamabai was the purchaser of land from respondent No.6. 8. Regular Civil Appeal No.177 of 1994 was allowed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2000. Against that Second Appeal No.650 of 2003 was filed by respondent No.1 Rameshwar. Second appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 21.01.2019 which was corrected vide order dated 29.01.2019. Being aggrieved, the purchasers preferred two distinct Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court. Appeal preferred by respondent No.4 Shivaji is still subjudiced before Supreme Court. 4 17-RA.278-22+1.odt 9. Mean time, in Regular Civil Appeal No.182 of 1994 preferred by Bhagirathibai. A settlement was arrived at on 24.11.1999. Appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was modified in terms of settlement to the extent of Satyabhamabai and respondent No.1 Rameshwar. This fact was not brought to the notice of High Court in Second Appeal No.650 of 2003. In the said appeal, Satyabhamabai was not party. The death of Bhagirathibai was not brought to the notice of the Court. These are the mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 10. Applicants’ predecessor Satyabhamabai and her vendor Bhagirathibai did not bring to the notice the relevant facts. Even original parties to the suit did not bring the subsequent events to the notice of Lower Appellate Court as well as High Court. I am of the considered view that grave hardship and prejudice is caused to the applicants who are heirs of Satyabhamabai. 11. The controversy remains to the extent of land alienated in favour of respondent No.4 Shivaji and to his extent, matter is subjudiced before Apex Court. To the extent of alienation made in favour of Bhagirathibai and subsequently in favour of Satyabhamabai, the matter is settled. The said transaction can 5 17-RA.278-22+1.odt be segregated from the transaction entered into between original owner and respondent No.4 Shivaji. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if clarification is issued to the order which is sought to be reviewed or modified. 12. Learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 who are present before Court, on instructions, submits that they have no objection to segregate the claim and to finalize the case of the applicants i.e. to the extent of 1 Acre and 30 R. of land Gut No.254. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow review application partly. Hence, the following order : O R D E R (i) Review application is partly allowed. (ii) It is clarified that the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.650 of 2003 shall not affect the interest acquired by the Bhagirathibai on 17.02.1989 and which is further transferred to present applicants. (iii) Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1989 to the extent of the above referred alienation and as against respondent No.6 Bhagirathibai stands dismissed. (iv) It is further clarified that the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.650 of 2003 shall not be made applicable to the extent of present applicants who are stepped into shoes of 6 17-RA.278-22+1.odt respondent No.6 Bhagirathibai being subsequent purchasers. (v) In view of disposal of second appeal, pending civil application does not survive. Civil application as such is disposed of. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ... vmk/-