Disposed

Sulochanabai Narayan Mitha v. Maruti Narayan Sarawade and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2007AO/716/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that no further orders were necessary in the appeal as the impugned status quo order had already been set aside and the matter remanded by a separate appeal. The court directed the registry to send the impounded agreement of sale to the trial court for proceedings on stamp duty.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to send impounded agreement of sale to trial court for stamp duty proceedings.

Sulochanabai Narayan Mitha Vs Maruti Narayan Sarawade and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

A. O. NO. 716 OF 2004

¶4

Smt. S. N. Mitha ... Appellant vs.

¶5

Maruti N. Sarawde ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. M. R. Deshpande for appellant

¶7

Mr. S. Sakhare for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. R. R. Mahagaonkar for respondent nos. 4 to 9.

¶9

CORAM: D. G. KARNIK J.

¶10

DATE: 10^th April 2007

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This appeal at the instance of original defendant no.1A is directed against the judgment and order dated 3^rd July 2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, directing the appellants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.

¶14

The impugned order dated 3^rd July 2004 was also challenged by the original defendant nos. 2 to 7 by filing an appeal, bearing A.O. No. 717 of 2004. By an order dated 21^st December 2006 this court allowed A.O. No. 717 of 2004, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made therein. Since the impugned order has

¶15

already been set aside no further orders are necessary in this appeal. Suffice it to say that the order dated 21^st December 2006 passed in A.O. No. 717 of 2004 would govern this appeal also.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the alleged agreement of sale dated 16^th November 1999 is not properly stamped and this court, by an order dated 13^th December 2006 had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to impound the document and take further steps in the mater. The Registrar (Judicial) has submitted his report. Since the matter is now being remanded to the trial court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the document in this court as otherwise the parties may not be able to lead evidence proving the document. It would therefore be appropriate to direct the registry to send the impounded document to the trial court. Accordingly it is ordered that the alleged agreement of sale dated 16^th November 1999 (marked 'X' for identification) be also sent to the trial court along with the records, if any. The trial court shall take necessary action for impounding and recovery of stamp duty and penalty in accordance with law. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(D.G. KARNIK J.)

Sulochanabai Narayan Mitha v. Maruti Narayan Sarawade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochanabai Narayan Mitha v. Maruti Narayan Sarawade 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

M/S.Mars Gas Services Vs Bombay Gas Services

Smt. Vrindavati Tukaram Bhere Vs Smt. Asha Anand Dabholkar and Ors.

Smt.Prabhavati .I.Naikwadi Vs Udhav.v.Bhosale

Sulochanabai Narayan Mitha Vs Maruti Narayan Sarawade and Ors.

Sanjeev Babu Anchan Vs Laxman Ramji Khewara

Yashwant Kashinath Patil Vs Shankar Ganpat Patil and Ors.