Dismissed

Ranjana Shivaji Aatole v. Shrihari Sakharam Gawade and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2005AO/154/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, an unsuccessful defendant below, challenged the dismissal of her counter-claim and the application for an injunction restraining respondents from obstructing her water access to a well. Appellate Court denied injunction finding Appellant had no title to the property.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Liberty granted to apply for expeditious hearing.

Ranjana Shivaji Aatole Vs Shrihari Sakharam Gawade and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

A.O.NO.154 OF 2005

¶5

 Ranjana Shivaji Aatole .. Appellant
 vs.

¶6

 Shrihari Sakharam Gavade & Ors .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for the
 Appellant.

¶8

 Mr.S.M.Oak for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶10

DATED : 2nd May, 2005.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties.

¶13

 The Appeal is by unsuccessful Defendant No.1. The

¶14

 suit filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2. (The

¶15

 original Plaintiffs) has been decreed by the trial
 Court. Counter claim preferred by the Appellant and
 the Original Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 has been
 dismissed. In the Appeal preferred by the Appellant
 in First Appellate Court for challenging the
 Judgment and decree of the trial Court, an

¶16

 application for injunction was made by the Appellant
 for restraining the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein

¶17

 from obstructing the Appellant from taking water
 from the well in land bearing block No.564. The
 said application has been rejected by the First

¶18

-2-

¶19

 Appellate Court.

¶20

 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the
 Appellant submitted that during the pendency of the
 suit the right of the Appellant to take water from
 the well in dispute was protected. He submitted
 that the water pipe line laid for fetching water
 from the disputed well to the agricultural land of
 the appellant is still in existence. He submitted
 that there is no sufficient water available in the
 well which is situated on the land of the Appellant.
 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
 No.1 pointed out the statement made in the
 affidavits filed by the parties in this Court and he
 submitted that after having failed in the trial
 court, the Appellant is not entitled to any interim
 relief.

¶21

 3. I have considered the rival submissions.
 The learned Appellate Court has observed that there
 is a categorical finding recorded that Original
 Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not in possession of the
 suit property and they have no right, title or
 interest in the suit property. Prima facie finding
 is recorded by the First Appellate Court that in the
 operative part of the judgment and decree of the

¶22

-3-

¶23

 trial Court, due to error it is mentioned that the
 Appellant is having a share in the land on which the
 well is situated.

¶24

 4. Considering the finding of the trial Court
 that Original Defendants 1 to 6 are not in
 possession of the suit property, the First Appellate
 Court has declined to grant injunction in favour of
 the Appellant.

¶25

 5. From the Affidavits filed by the Parties in
 this Appeal it appears that there is a well
 available in the property of the Appellant. The
 only contention of the Appellant is that the water
 in the said well is not sufficient. After having
 failed to establish her right, title and interest in
 the trial Court, the Appellate Court has declined to
 grant interim relief in favour of the Appellant.
 The Order passed by the Appellate Court is
 discretionary order. Considering the reasons
 recorded by the Appellate Court, no interference is
 called for.

¶26

 6. Hence Appeal is dismissed with no order as
 to costs.

¶27

 7. Liberty to the Appellants to apply for
 expeditious hearing of the appeal.

¶28

-4-

¶29

 (A.S.Oka, .)

Ranjana Shivaji Aatole v. Shrihari Sakharam Gawade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Shivaji Aatole v. Shrihari Sakharam Gawade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapusaheb Tatoba Hulle (Decd.) by Lrs. 1. Smt. Lilawati Bapusaheb Hulle and Ors. Vs 1A. Smt. Gangubai @ Sonaobai Baburao Hulle (Decd.) by Lrs. 2. Sumati a. Patil (Decd.) by Lrs.and or

Mahadeo Dyanu Khule Vs Ramkrishna Shivram Khule and Ors.

Sadashiv Ramchandra Sankpal Vs Shantabai W/O. Govind (Lohar) Kavare

Deepak Dnyandeo Kadam and Others. Vs Shri Popat Pandharinath Kadam.

Mr.Rajan Babulal Mehta Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Shri Ajit Thakkar Vs Shri Bhaggal Kharbhan Kunbi