Disposed

Chandrakant Ganpati Kamble v. Dattaji Appasaheb Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2007WP/5908/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an injunction restraining the petitioner from raising permanent construction on land he claims as an undivided share. The court granted no substantive relief but urged expeditious disposal of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Petitioner urged to support civil suit expeditiously.

Chandrakant Ganpati Kamble Vs Dattaji Appasaheb Jadhav and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5908 OF 2007

¶4

 Chandrakant Ganpati Kamble
 Through his Power of Attorney
 Holder, father, Ganpati
 Chamdrappa Kamble .... Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Dattaji Appasaheb Jadhav and ors....... Respondent.

¶7

 Mr. Shriniwas sudhir Patwardhan for the eptitioner.

¶8

 CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 18TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶9

P.C.;

¶10

 1. This writ petition is filed by the original
 defendant no.1 against whom the First Appellate Court
 has passed an order restraining him from raising any
 permanent construction in the portion of land, which
 is in his possession till the disposal of the suit.
 The First Appellate Court on the basis of material on
 record, has primafacie found that the present
 petitioner has purchased an undivided share and hence
 has become a co-owner along with the plaintiff. For
 reaching a primafacie finding, the First Appellate
 Court has relied upon the description of the property

¶11

 in the sale deed. The trial court has also held that
 the present petitioner is a co-owner. Thus all the

¶12

 co-owners would be entitled to a common use of the
 property in question. No co-owner can use any part of
 the said property for his exclusive use and
 occupation. Taking a possible view of the matter, the
 First Appellate Court has granted injunction referred
 to hereinabove.

¶13

 2. Perused the order. The same does not call for any
 interference, more so in exercise of writ
 jurisdiction. However, having regard to the nature of
 dispute, I hope and trust that the trial court will
 proceed to decide the suit bearing No.47/06 as
 expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
 peirod of six months from today.

Chandrakant Ganpati Kamble v. Dattaji Appasaheb Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Ganpati Kamble v. Dattaji Appasaheb 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

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Divisional Jt.Reg. Co-Op,. Soci. and Ors.

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Divisional Jt. Reg. Co-Op. Soci. and Ors.

Balkrishna Govind Joil and Another Vs Bajirao Dattray Mungekar and Another

Subhash Eknath Salunkhe Vs Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Ors.

Narayan Shivram Mohite Vs the Special Recovery and Sales Officer - Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd.and Ors.

Jayesh D. Jhaveri (Huf) Vs the Secretary - Khusman Chs Ltd.