Prakash Raibhan Shinde v. Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2011WP/42/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench rejected the writ petition challenging the High Court's appellate order on a civil suit involving succession and land disputes. The writ court held that the appellate court's grant of interim relief was not perverse, noting that the plaintiff had failed to produce documents proving possession. The court declined to interfere with findings of fact regarding physical possessi

What did the court decide?

Petition for writ jurisdiction and judicial review against the High Court's appellate order was rejected.

Prakash Raibhan Shinde Vs Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶5

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011

¶7

***

¶8

1.Heard Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for

¶9

Petitioner/ original defendant, Advocate Mrs.
Ansari for Respondents.

¶10

2.Contention is, plaint itself suffer from

¶11

material suppression of facts, inasmuch as

¶12

execution of will deed by deceased Raibhan

¶13

Shinde and fact that it was attested by the

¶14

respondent/ plaintiff was suppressed. Even

¶15

the position in relation to mutation entries

¶16

was not correctly pointed out. Learned

¶17

counsel states that as per will executed by
Raibhan Shinde the petitioner/ defendant is
entitled to 0.94 Ares of the land and hence

¶18

trial Court has correctly refused interim

¶19

relief to that extent. Appellate Court
should not have interfered in the matter and

¶20

granted interim relief in relation to entire

¶21

land i.e. even to the extent of this 0.94

¶22

Ares land. Advocate Smt. Ansari contends,

¶23

¶24

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011

¶26

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶27

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶28

alleged suppression has got no bearing

¶29

insofar as fact of possession is concerned.
According to her, petitioner could not
produce on record any document to

¶30

substantiate his possession. The finding in
this respect is finding of fact and this
Court should not interfere at this stage.
Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar invited attention to

¶31

para 7 to urge that there possession of
petitioner has been recorded.

¶32

3.The names in revenue records and

¶33

mutation entries appear to be in dispute and
litigation in that connection is going on.

¶34

In any case, those entries are not decisive

¶35

before civil Court. If the petitioner
defendant is in cultivating possession he

¶36

could have produced some documents to show

¶37

his actual possession. Those documents are

¶38

not produced. The statement that Raibhan
died intestate appears in plaint but then at

¶39

this stage as it does not have any bearing on

¶40

¶41

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011

¶43

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶44

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶45

fact of physical possession of the suit land,

¶46

the suppression cannot be treated as fatal.

¶47

4.The Appellate Court has considered all
relevant material and there is no
jurisdictionalerrororperversity.

¶48

Petition, therefore, is rejected.

¶49

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶50

Dated:17/01/2011.
ans/42

Prakash Raibhan Shinde v. Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Raibhan Shinde v. Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde 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

Bharat Babanrao Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Surekha Bharat Karande Vs Deepak Janardhan Wani and Ors.

Kamalbai Kisan Arke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratik Prakashchand Karnawat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Indarsing Gulabsingh Girase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umashankar Baburao Samshette Vs Vimalbai Virbhadra Kaijkar and Ors.