Dismissed

Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar and 3 Ors., v. Mr. Ajit Shantaram Malkarnekar Rep. by His Duly Constituted Attorney Mr. Narhar G. Thakur and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011WP/156/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an injunction restraining mundkar petitioners from construction. The court accepted the respondents' clarification that the injunction would not affect ingress and egress, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition against the temporary injunction was dismissed with a clarification that the injunction does not affect ingress and egress.

Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar and 3 Ors., Vs Mr. Ajit Shantaram… — Partition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2011

¶4

Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶5

Mrs. Sunita Pandurang Betkekar, widow of Pandurang Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶6

Mrs. Janki Ramchandra Betkekar, widow of Ramchandra Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶7

Mrs. Radhabai Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶8

…... Petitioners/ Orig. Defs. No. 1 to 4

¶9

V e r s u s

¶10

Mr. Ajit Shantaram Malkarnekar alias Malkerneker alias Malkernekar, age about 61 years, son of Shantaram Malkernekar, married, businessman, Indian National, residing at House No. E-117, Campal, Panaji, Goa. Represented by his duly constituted Attorney Mr. Narhar Ganashyam Thakur, age about 49 years, married, businessman, Indian National, resident of A1-top Co-operative Housing Society, Montepio Road, Altinho, Panaji (Goa) by virtue of the Special Power of Attorney dated 04/07/2009 executed before the Notary Rajendra Naik of Sanguem/ Quepem/Ponda and registered in his Office under no. 5565/2009. …... Respondent/ Orig. Plaintiff

¶11

Mr. Ramdas Krishnanath Betkekar, son of Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶12

-2-

¶13

Mr. Gharo Krishnanath Betkekar, son of Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, r/o. Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa.

¶14

…... Respondent/ Orig. Defs. No.5 & 6

¶15

Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶16

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶17

Coram :- F. M. REIS, J th Date : 24 November, 2011.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶20

The above Writ Petition challenges the Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent was partly allowed and the Petitioners were restrained by a temporary injunction from interfering with the suit property as well as from carrying out any construction activity beyond the mundkarial house. The Petitioners are only mundkars residing in the suit property. Consequently, the Petitioners at the most are entitled to the rights as reserved for them under the Mundkar Act. As mundkars, the Petitioners are not entitled to interfere with the remaining property of the Respondents nor carry out any construction beyond the plinth of the dwelling house.

¶21

Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that considering the nature of the relief granted by the Lower Appellate

¶22

-3-

¶23

Court, the Petitioners would be even prevented from the ingress and egress to the dwelling house in the suit property.

¶24

On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has stated that it has always been his case that the ingress and egress of the Petitioners would not be disturbed despite of the injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court. Learned Senior counsel has further pointed out that it may be clarified that the injunction granted by the Court shall not in any way effect the ingress and egress of the Petitioners to go to the main road from the existing mundkarial dwelling house occupied by the Petitioners. Hence, the injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court shall be subject to the said statement of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents Shri Lotlikar, which is accepted.

¶25

Subject to the above clarification, no interference is called for in the impugned Order and hence the above Petition stands dismissed.

¶26

F .M. REIS, J.

¶27

arp/*

Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar and 3 Ors., v. Mr. Ajit Shantaram Malkarnekar Rep. by His Duly Constituted Attorney Mr. Narhar G. Thakur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar and 3 Ors., v. Mr. Ajit Shantaram Malkarnekar Rep. by His Duly Constituted Attorney Mr. Narhar G. Thakur and Anr.

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

State ( through P.I. Shri Uttam Y. Raut Dessai, Pernem Police Station) Vs Shri Aman Bhardwaj @ Amar Ranbhar

The Candolim Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Mr. Sandeep v. Bandekar Vs Mr. Umakant Hari Mahale

Shri Satchit Datta Chari Vs Smt. Antoneta Faleiro

Mr. Shantikumar Bhalchandra Rao and 2 Ors., Vs Smt. Lalita Premanand Rao and Anr.

Mrs. Ricardina Furtado (Since Dec.) through Lr'S Vs Mrs. Jessie Dias and Anr.

Shri. Durga English School through Chairman Paris Vaman Kambli and Anr., Vs Shri. Yeshwant P. Dhore and 2 Ors.