Dismissed

Yamunabai K.Bhamtekar v. Sitaram Dadu Bhamtekar and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2005WP/3005/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal of an interim injunction to restrain construction on partitioned land, the High Court held that the lower courts correctly found the petitioner lacked prima facie evidence of possession over the claimed portion and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed and the rule was discharged.

Yamunabai K.Bhamtekar Vs Sitaram Dadu Bhamtekar and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.3005 OF 2004

¶5

 Yamunabai Krishnat Bhamtekar, through

¶6

 Power of Attorney Holder:

¶7

 Krishnat Dadu Bhamtekar : Petitioner
 V/s.

¶8

 Sitaram Dadu Bhamtekar & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

 Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for the

¶10

 petitioner.

¶11

 Mr.D. Taur i/b. Ms Varsha Palav for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.
 February 21, 2005.

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶15

 Mr.Taur, learned counsel, appears and waives

¶16

 service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

 Heard by consent.

¶18

 2. The petitioner has filed a suit and claimed an
 injunction restraining the respondents from constructing

¶19

¶20

 on the Eastern portion of gat no.1111. This injunction
 has been refused by the trial Court as well as by the
 appellate Court. The Courts below have found that it is
 an admitted position that there is a partition between the
 petitioner and the respondents. However, the petitioner’s
 case has been prima facie not accepted on the ground that
 there is no evidence that the petitioner is in possession
 of 19 R. land on the south-eastern portion of gat no.1111
 which is to the East of the Government road. The Courts
 below have found that the petitioner is in possession of
 the entire frontage adjacent to the Government road which
 came to his share and not to the portion over which he
 claims an injunction. There is no error of law apparent
 on the face of the record.

¶21

 3. In the result, there is no merit in the Petition which
 is hereby dismissed. The rule stands discharged.

¶22

 Sd/-

¶23

 S.A. BOBDE, J.

Yamunabai K.Bhamtekar v. Sitaram Dadu Bhamtekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamunabai K.Bhamtekar v. Sitaram Dadu Bhamtekar 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

Nana Hari Patole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Milind M. Phatak Vs the Principal (v. College of Arts and A.M. College of Commerce and E.S.A. College of Sceience) and

Santosh Sakharam Mandhare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdulalim Alisaheb Hushye Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayyad Omnar Haji Maheboob Sahebinamdar (Decd) by Lrs. Sayyad Jamil Sayyad Omar Inamdar Vs the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Pune Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.