Allowed

Thakurbhai Kuwarji Rathod v. 1. Pramodbhai Kalidas Aslia Ramkrishna Oza and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2007CAF/2288/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a stay order restraining respondents from interfering with the applicant's peaceful possession and cultivation of the suit land, conditioning the grant on depositing use and occupation charges as determined by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Stay order restraining respondents from interfering with applicant's peaceful possession and cultivation of suit land, subject to deposit of 50,000/- annually as use and occupation charges.

Thakurbhai Kuwarji Rathod Vs 1. Pramodbhai Kalidas… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2288 OF 2007
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION (ST) NO. 18180 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1361 OF 2007

¶3

Thakurbhai Kuwarji Rathod..Applicant

¶4

V/s

¶5

Pramodbhai Kalidas @ Ramkrishna
Oza and others

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Navin Parikh i/b Bhavna Shah for the applicant
in C.A. No.2288/2007 and for the Respondents in
Cross Objection No. 18180/2007.

¶8

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr./ Jayesh
BNhatt for Respondent No.s 1,3,4,6 and 7 and for
appellant in Cross Objection No.18180/07.

¶9

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1.Heard.

¶12

2.The applicant has filed an application for
seeking stay of the operation of the impugned
Judgment and Decree dated 29th December, 2006 passed
in Special Civil Suit No. 6/1998 by the learned
trial Court and for seeking injunction restraining
the respondent-original defendants, their agents and

¶13

servants from in any manner interfering, obstructing
or disturbing the quiet, vacant and peceful
possession, use and enjoyment and cultivation of the
suit land being survey No. 327 of Village Galonda,
admeasuring 3 Hectors and 12 Ares and creating third
party rights in respect of suit land.

¶14

3.The application iscontested by the

¶15

respondents-original defendants on the ground that
the possession is with the respondents and therefore,
such an order cannot be passed to disturb the
defendants from the suit land as admittedly the
defendants are the owners of the suit land. The
right to continue in possession after the

¶16

appellant-plaintiff has lost his suit claim for
spefific performance of contract stands extinguished.

¶17

4.We have heard the leanred Counsel for the
parties and gone through the evidence on record.
Prima facie we find that in view of the admission
given by the defendant in his evidence that the
plaintiff, is in possession, use and occuaption of
the suit land, it will be proper that the
plaintiff-appellant is allowed to be in possession of

¶18

:3:

¶19

the suit land, and cultivate the same without any
interference form the respondents-defenants.

¶20

5.Such a relief can be granted in favour of the
appellant on imposing certain terms and conditions,
including that of depositing use and occupation
charges which according to the defendants was being
paid towards licence fees for cultivating the said
land. It was the case of the respondents-defendants
that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid as licence
fees by the appellant-plaintiff and he was only given
right to cultivate the suit land. Therefore, we pass
the following order.

¶21

.The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) and (b) on the conditions that the
appellant shall deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- per
annum from the year 1997-98 onwards, and so far as
for the period 1997-98 till 2005-2006, the appellant
shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the
trial Court for the sum which is required to be paid
towards the use and occupation charges i.e. at the
rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum and shall deposit in
the trial Court a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per anunm

¶22

commencing from 2006-07 and 2007-08 on or before 31st
March, 2008 and for the further year i.e. from
2008-09 onwards or before 31st March of the financial
year. On such amount being deposited, the trial
Court would invest the said amount in term deposit
initially for a period of 37 months in a Nationalised
Bank of the choice of the respondents-defendants and
to be renewed from time to time until further orders.
Application stands disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs.

¶23

6.Cross-objection filed by the respondents is
admitted.

¶24

7.The learned Counsel for the respondents states
that respondnets have already sold the property and
that he wants time to file affidavit-in-reply. S.O.
for two weeks.

Thakurbhai Kuwarji Rathod v. 1. Pramodbhai Kalidas Aslia Ramkrishna Oza and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakurbhai Kuwarji Rathod v. 1. Pramodbhai Kalidas Aslia Ramkrishna Oza 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

Prof. Padmakar Ganpat Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepa @Devyani Prashant Upadhyay Vs Prashant Upendra Upadhyay

Sudam Vitthal Hivarkar Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors.

Laxmi @ Ranjana Pandurang Indulkar Vs Pandurang S.Indulkar

Kawaljeet Kaur Milkha Bedi Vs Milkha Singh Bedi

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri.Manik R. Jagdale and Ors.