Dismissed

Pradip Jagannath Khabale and Ors. v. Shankar Nivrutti Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2007WP/5820/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claims purchase of 1/4th share in disputed property. Respondents, as co-parceners, claim no partition occurred. Trial court granted injunction restraining petitioner. High Court summarized dismissed petition but directed trial court to decide suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition summarized dismissed; directed trial court to decide suit expeditiously.

Pradip Jagannath Khabale and Ors. Vs Shankar Nivrutti Jadhav and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5820 OF 2007

¶4

 Pradip Jagannath Khabale & ors.... Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Shankar Nivrutti Jadhav & ors...... Respondent.

¶7

 Shri Amit Sale for the petitioner
 Shri Ajit Kensale for respondent no.1.

¶8

 CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 08TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶9

P.C.;

¶10

 1. The present petitioner is original defendant no.1
 who claims to have purchased an undivided share. The
 case of the petitioner is that he has purchased 1/4th
 share in the suit property from the other defendants.
 The Plaintiff’s case is that he is a co-parcener of
 the joint family property and that there has been
 never any partition effected of the joint family
 property, and hence the other co-owners could not have
 sold any portion of the land. The plaintiff in the
 said suit filed an application for temporary
 injunction. The trial court granted temporary
 injunction as prayed by the plaintiff and a Misc.
 Civil Appeal filed by the present petitioner before
 the District Court has been dismissed. Temporary

¶11

 injunction is operating in favour of the plaintiff
 since more than last two years. Both the courts below
 have primafacie concurrently found that there has been
 no partition of the joint family property and the
 defendant no.1/petiitoner being a third party, has
 been restrained by granting of temporary injunction
 from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of
 the suit property.

¶12

 2. Perused the impugned order. The same does not

¶13

 call for any interference more so in exercise of writ
 jurisdiction. In my view a direction to the trial
 court to expeditiously decide the suit would be in
 furtherence of cause of justice. Hence though the
 writ petition is summarily dismissed, I direct the
 trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as
 possible uninfluenced by the observations made in the
 impugned order.

Pradip Jagannath Khabale and Ors. v. Shankar Nivrutti Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Jagannath Khabale and Ors. v. Shankar Nivrutti Jadhav 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

Harish G. Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash S. Nalawade Vs Ganga Park Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr.

Subhash Dasaheb Patil Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

Ramachandran Sundaram Vs Virendra Hari Patil and Anr.

Union Bank of India Vs Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Atlaswala and Ors.

Kamal Balasaheb Nitave Vs Appasaheb @ Satgonda Ravaji Patil