Dismissed

Anant Parisa Karve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2009WP/2371/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order accepting a third party's application in an injunction suit, holding that observations in a related partition suit did not definitively resolve property status thereby supporting the lower court's view.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Court below.

Anant Parisa Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2371 OF 2009

¶5

 Anant Parisa Karve. ..Petitioner.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.Rahul Kulkarni for petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶11

 DATE : MARCH 16, 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶14

 2, I have no hesitation in upholding the order
 passed by the Court below, which is impugned in this

¶15

 Petition. The argument of the Petitioner that in
 another suit in relation to the suit property it has
 been found that the Respondent third party has no
 right. That finding has been recorded on Application
 Exh.5. The argument though attractive will have to
 be turned down for the simple reason that the
 observation made in Exh.5 is in the context of prima
 facie case made out by the Plaintiff regarding
 possession of the suit property. That does not mean
 that whether the suit property is in fact a joint

¶16

¶17

 family property or self acquired property has been
 finally answered. If the partition suit was to be
 decreed, it would necessarily follow that the third
 party has right, title and shares in the suit
 property being joint family property. If it is so,
 even if the present suit filed by the Petitioner is
 simplicitor for injunction against the Defendants,
 the fact remains that the Petitioner has also sought
 declaration and direction to demarcate the suit
 property. That may or may not affect the interest of
 the third party. However, third party is entitled to
 claim that if any order is to be passed in the said
 proceedings, which may be adverse to the interest of
 the third party, it would create further complication
 and multiplicity of proceedings.

¶18

 3. Thus understood, taking any view of the
 matter, no fault can be found with the view expressed
 by the Court below in the impugned Judgment in
 accepting application preferred by the third party.
 Hence dismissed.

¶19

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Anant Parisa Karve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Parisa Karve v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Jyotindra Ishwarlal Khokhani Vs Hasmukh B. Zaveri

Girgul Farsu Mendoza (Decd.)by Lrs.- Rita Girgool and Ors. Vs Alice John Bastyao Rodrigues and Ors.

Shri Laxmikant Kashinath Dhume and Ors. Vs Shrisudhir R. Deshpande and Ors.

Bhagwan Narayan Dhole and Ors. Vs Arjun Narayan Dhole

Ibrahim Bandu Shaikh (Decd.)by Lrs. - Khatunbi Noormohamad Inamdar (Decd.)by Lrs.-Mubarak N.Inamdar Vs Ramat Hanif Shaikh (Decd.)by Lrs.-Baby Mirasaheb Mutani and Ors.

Kishore R. Padwal Vs Rameshwar B. Vishwakarama and Anr.