The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order refusing temporary injunction. The court held that since the registered sale deed was in the defendants' favor without a challenge to validity, no prima facie case was made out.
Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Appeal No.236 of 2007
In
Notice of Motion No.3564 of 2003
In
Counter Claim (Lodg.) No.3189 of 2003
In
Suit No.831 of 2003
Mohammed Khalil Khan & Anr. .. Appellants
Vs.
Najeebunissa w/o.Mohammed Shami
& Ors. .. Respondents
--
Shri Atul G.Damle for the appellants.
None present for Respondent No.1.
Smt. Shweta Doshi for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6.
--
CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &
D.G.KARNIK, JJ
DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2007
P.C.
1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellants.
2. This appeal arises from the order dated 12th
January, 2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge in
Notice of Motion No.3564 of 2003. By the impugned
order, the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the
notice of motion holding that the appellants have
- 2 -
failed to make out a prima facie case in relation to
the suit flats in respect of which the relief of
temporary injunction was asked for. The findings
arrived at by the Learned Single Judge on the basis of
the materials placed on record disclose that the
registered conveyance in relation to the suit flats
stands in favour of the defendants other than the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 who had asked for the relief in
question. Being so, there is no question of
interference in the impugned order as the same
discloses proper assessment of the materials on record
and the findings arrived at cannot be faulted with.
Merely because some correspondence prior to the sale
deed disclosed some payment of money by the deceased
father of the parties, that by itself will not be a
sufficient cause for interference in the impugned
order more particularly when there is no challenge to
the sale deed in question. Hence, there being no case
made out for interference in the impugned order, the
appeal is dismissed.
(R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J)
( D.G.KARNIK, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants can establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction regarding suit flats where the registered conveyance is in the defendants' favor.
Whether prior correspondence showing payments by the deceased father amounts to sufficient cause to interfere with the dismissal of the notice of motion.
Mohammed Khalil Khan
Najeebunissa w/o.Mohammed Shami
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
D.G.KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court