Allowed

1 Shri Maruti Vishnu Langute v. 1 Smt. Parubai Gangaram Langute

Bombay HC14 Aug 2012CAS/1095/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil application preferred by original defendants seeking a stay and implementation of an impugned judgment and decree in a suit for permanent injunction. Considering the side-level balance of convenience and the fact that respondents had not filed an affidavit in reply, the court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.7.2011.

1 Shri Maruti Vishnu Langute Vs 1 Smt. Parubai Gangaram… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

12 cas1095-11.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1095 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.449 OF 2011

¶5

Maruti Vishnu Langute and Ors.

¶6

.... Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt.Parubai Gangaram Langute and Ors.

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

Mr.Dilip Bodake for the applicants

¶11

Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the respondents

¶12

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 14^th AUGUST, 2012

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

¶15

This application is preferred by original defendants for stay and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree dt.4.7.2011 passed by District Judge1, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2002 arising out of judgment and decree dt.7.2.0202 passed by learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan in Regular Civil Suit No.259 of 1999.

¶16

Respondents original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.259 of

¶17

1999 in the court of IInd Joint Civi Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan for

¶18

1/4

¶19

12 cas1095-11.doc

¶20

permanent injunction restraining applicants original defendants from disturbing their possession in respect of the suit property i.e. Gat No.754. In the said suit, the Trial Court framed following issues:

¶21

	Issues Findings
1.	Whether plaintiff proves that they are in possession of suit land as an exclusive owner ? In the negative
2.	Whether plaintiff proves that defendant unauthorisedly obstructed their peaceful possession over the suit land ? In the negative
3.	Whether defendant proves that suit properties are his selfacquired properties ? In the affirmative
4.	Whether plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction ? In the negative
5.	What order and costs ? As per final order
4.	The trial court categorically held that respondents original plaintiffs
fail	ed to prove that they are in possession of the suit property as exclusive
ow	ner. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.07.02.2002 passed
by	IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan, respondents original
pla	intiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal no.92 of 2002. In that appeal,
res	pondents preferred application for temporary injunction restraining
app	licants from disturbing respondents possession of the suit property. The

¶22

said application was decided by the 3^rd Additional District Judge, Satara by

¶23

2/4

¶24

12 cas1095-11.doc

¶25

order dt.29.06.02 holding that respondent failed to prove their exclusive possession in respect of the suit property. The applicants further held that respondents are not entitled to any relief.

¶26

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as on today they are in possession of the suit property. He further states that applicant made specific statements in para 10 of the present Civil Application that they are exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property.

¶27

In the present Civil Application, ad interim relief was granted on 18.06.2012 when the Advocate for respondent asked some time to file their affidavit in reply. However, till today there is no affidavit in reply.

¶28

Considering the averments made in Civil Application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for allowing this Civil Application. Hence, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)which reads thus:

¶29

“(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above said Appeal, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and/or implementation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.7.2011 passed by the Ld.District Judge1, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2002 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Ld.II Joint Civil Judge,

¶30

3/4

¶31

12 cas1095-11.doc

¶32

(J.D.), Phaltan in Regular Civil Suit No.259 of 1999.”

¶33

Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶35

Mohite

¶36

4/4

1 Shri Maruti Vishnu Langute v. 1 Smt. Parubai Gangaram Langute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1 Shri Maruti Vishnu Langute v. 1 Smt. Parubai Gangaram Langute

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

Dadaso Maruti Mane Vs Shri Kashinath Amrut Bellenavar

Arjun Dewoo Rokade Vs Sadashiv Dhondu Rokade

Dadaso Maruti Mane Vs Shri Kashinath Amrut Bellenavar

Shivappa Sidram Kawachale Vs Ramling Sidram Kawachale

Jagannath Krishna Karle Vs Bhalseth Babaji Mudras

Musa Fakruddin Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.