Dismissed

Munjaji Shamrao Jadhav v. Govind Kishanrao Mehatre and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2010AO/25/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed an appeal against an injunction order. The court held that the excavation of ponds by the appellant was bona fide for supplying murum to the government for road construction, not for malafide damage to the suit land.

What did the court decide?

The appeal from the injunction order was dismissed and Civil Application no. 3162/2009 was struck off.

Munjaji Shamrao Jadhav Vs Govind Kishanrao Mehatre and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 25 OF 2009

¶4

Munjaji s/o Shamrao Jadhav

¶5

.. APPELLANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Govind Kishanrao Mehatre & others

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Shri S.R. Bagal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶10

=====

¶11

CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 16th JULY, 2010.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1 This is an appeal from order challenging the order passed by the

¶14

District Judge – 1, Basmathnagar on 17-1-2009 on application exh. 24

¶15

for injunction in Regular Civil Appeal no. 9/2006 whereby the present

¶16

appellant and original respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 from said appeal

¶17

were restrained from changing the nature of the suit land by

¶18

excavating the soil and preparing ditches or by cutting the trees from

¶19

the suit land gat no. 73 admeasuring 3 Hec. 66 Are situate at village

¶20

¶21

Kallavi, Tq. Basmath till disposal of the appeal.

¶22

2 Heard advocates of both the sides. Original suit was for

¶23

declaration and injunction by plaintiff who is present respondent no.1. The present appellant is purchaser from respondent no.7. He claims to be the bonafide purchaser for value. At this stage, it is not disputed that he is in possession of part of the suit property which he has purchased. The suit came to be dismissed. As against the same, appeal is filed. In appeal, application exh. 24 is filed stating that the present appellant and original respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 from said appeal were trying to damage the property by excavating it.

¶24

3 Impugned order shows that original respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and

¶25

8 have not filed any affidavit in reply initially but subsequently respondent no. 8 who is present appellant has filed affidavit stating that he has purchased 1 H 83 Are land out of gat no. 73 from original respondent no. 7 and was in possession thereof. He further stated that he had agreed to supply murum (crumbly rock) to the Government

¶26

¶27

for construction of road and also constructed ponds in the field for

¶28

irrigating his field and that he had no malafide intention in digging the

¶29

ponds. One thing is clear that it is not a case of digging of a well.

¶30

Learned advocate describes the two ponds as field ponds and states that the appellant has intention to join these two ponds. He wants to

¶31

have a bigger pond for irrigating land. For irrigating the land one may have a well. It is not clear why there should be pond for irrigating

¶32

the land. Trial court considered the entire material and in paragraph

¶33

no. 13 of the judgment has observed that the excavation of two ponds in the field was necessary for supplying murum to the Government for construction of roads. Respondent no. 8 has even

¶34

produced one undated letter by the Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad,

¶35

Basmath addressed to Tahsildar, Basmath showing that the present

¶36

appellant had agreed to supply Murum for construction of road between Dagadgaon to Mahatargaon for consideration. So, prima facie, excavation is for supplying Murum to the Government and it is

¶37

not a case of digging pond for irrigation.

¶38

¶39

4 At this stage, it is also stated at bar that the matter is fixed for final arguments on 21st July, 2010. So the appeal is likely to be disposed

¶40

of in near future and, if parties agree, can be disposed of even in this

¶41

month. In these circumstances, appeal from order deserves to be

¶42

dismissed. Hence, appeal from order is dismissed.

¶43

5 Civil Application no. 3162/2009 does not survive in view of

¶44

disposal of appeal from order.

¶45

( P. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶46

dyb/office/ao25.09.odt

Munjaji Shamrao Jadhav v. Govind Kishanrao Mehatre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munjaji Shamrao Jadhav v. Govind Kishanrao Mehatre and Ors.

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

Balgir Gangagir Giri and Anr. Vs Bhimrao Sandu Pawar

Shyamkumar Gorakh Karanje Vs the State of Mah. and Anr.

The M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer Vs Mehboob Umarkhan and Anr.

Babarao @ Dadarao Yogaji Dhore Vs Godavari Marathwada Irrigtion Development Corpn. through Its Exe.Engrr. Minor Irri.Divn Parbhani or

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Thr. Legal Manager Vs Satyabhama Arjun Bansude

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Raghunath Kashiram Choudhary.