Partly allowed

Karsiddha Gangaram Shelake and Anr. v. Dhondiram Sidhu Chambhar

Bombay HC12 Dec 2007WP/4036/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an interim permanent injunction order in a suit regarding possession and exclusive rights of suit land. The High Court allowed the petition without deciding the merits, directing that parties seek site demarcation and apply for modification of the injunction if successful thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on terms that if petitioners succeed in having the land demarcated, they can apply for modification of the injunction order.

Karsiddha Gangaram Shelake and Anr. Vs Dhondiram Sidhu… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4036 OF 2007

¶5

Karsiddha Gangaram Shelake

¶6

and Anr.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dhondiram Sidhu Chambhar.. Respondent

¶10

Mr.S.M.Kamble for petitioners

¶11

Mr.Karandikar for respondent.

¶12

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:12th December 2007

¶13

P.C.

¶14

.The petitioner is original defendant in
RCS No.119 of 2006 which is pending on the file
of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kagal.

¶15

¶16

That is a suit filed by the respondent for
permanent injunction restraining the petitioners
from disturbing his possession and peaceful
occupation of the suit land. The suit land is
described in para 1 of the plaint. It is Revenue
Survey No.68 and Hissa No.H-8, admeasuring 72 Rs.

¶17

2.The petitioners and respondents claim to
have acquired this land on the basis of a
registered sale deed dated 9th June 1989. The
petitioner No.1 original defendant No.1 claims to
have purchased six anna share under this deed
whereas respondent plaintiff claims to have
purchased Ten anna share. The dispute before the
trial court was whether the documents evidence
this purchase or whether the respondent plaintiff
is right in contending that under this document,
he has exclusive possession of the entire 72 Rs.
That dispute having yet to be resolved and prima
facie finding that the petitioners are not in
possession, that the subject injunction has been

¶18

¶19

issued.

¶20

3.The appeal therefrom preferred by the
petitioners has been dismissed. Aggrieved by
this order the present petition is filed.

¶21

4.Mr.Karandikar upon taking instructions
makes a statement that without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the plaintiff in the
suit, the respondent plaintiff would not
alienate, encumber, part with possession or
create third party rights in any manner
whatsoever in respect of the suit land which is
described in para (1) of the plaint. Reliance is
placed by Mr.Kamble on the documents and the
observations of the lower appellate court and
more particularly that to be found in para 6 of
the impugned order.

¶22

5.There is no demarcation of the land at
site inasmuch as which portion is purchased by

¶23

¶24

the present petitioners and respondents has not
been ascertained as yet. If the petitioners are
successful in having the land demarcated at site,
then, it would be open for them to apply for
modification of the order of the trial court and
the trial court to consider such an application,
if made, on the basis of the materials then
produced and in accordance with law, without
being influenced by the observations in the
earlier orders and disposal of this petition.
Petition disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Karsiddha Gangaram Shelake and Anr. v. Dhondiram Sidhu Chambhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karsiddha Gangaram Shelake and Anr. v. Dhondiram Sidhu Chambhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam S. Gangurde Vs Avtarsingh Jamansingh and Anr.

Manisha Mukund Suryawanshi Vs Namdeo Dnyanu Kharade and Ors.

Vasant Khimjibhai Patel Vs Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Purshottam Yashwant Rudraksha and Ors. Vs Smt.Prabha Sachindra Choudhari

Sayyajirao Bapusaheb Mardane and Anr. Vs Gafur Ramjan Madari and Anr.

Ambika Vidya Prasarak Mandal Vs Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State Mumbai and Anr.