Allowed

Shri Laxmandas Sundardas Doshi (Decd) by Heirs. v. Smt. Durga Durpabai Dattu Pise (Decd) by Heirs

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012CAS/404/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a civil application to restrain respondents from creating any third party right, title, or interest in the suit property pending the hearing and disposal of a second appeal in a specific performance suit. A protective injunction was granted as respondents attempted to sell the agricultural land to a third party during the pendency of the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Laxmandas Sundardas Doshi (Decd) by Heirs. Vs Smt… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

905.cas.404.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2012 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2000

¶5

Shri. Laxman Sundardas Doshi (Deceased) by Heirs ....Applicants. Versus Smt. Durga Durpabai Dattu Pise (Deceased) by Heirs. ....Respondents.

¶6

¶7

Mr. Surel Shah for the Applicants. Mr. Satish Raut for the Respondent No. 1/3.

¶8

CORAM: K. K. TATED, J. DATED : AUGUST 16, 2012.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants filed Affidavit of the Appellant No. 1-B-Shri. Amrutlal Laxmandas Doshi stating that he, personally, served the Respondent No. 1/2 Smt. Bhamabai Shivarkar. The said Affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. In this way, the service is effected on all the Respondents. Though all the Respondents are served, no one has filed Affidavit-in-Reply to oppose the present Civil Application.

1 of 4

S. S. MORMARE

905.cas.404.12

This Application is preferred by the original Plaintiffs restraining the Respondents from creating any third party right, title and interest in respect of the suit property described in paragraph 1A and 1B of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 345 of 1987.

¶17

The Applicants are the original Plaintiffs. They filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 345 of 1987 for specific performance of the Agreement dated 7^th February, 1961. The said suit was decided by the Trial Court on 26^th April, 1996 and directed the Respondent/original Defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Applicants in respect of the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the original Defendant Smt. Dhrupabai Dattu Pise has preferred the Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1996. In that Appeal, the Appellate Court by its Judgment and Decree dated 10^th August, 2000 has dismissed the Applicant’s suit for specific performance of the contract. The Appellate Court directed the Respondent/original Defendant to refund the earnest amount of Rs.3,000/- with costs. Being aggrieved by the said order of the lower Appellate Court, the Applicants preferred the present

2 of 4

S. S. MORMARE

905.cas.404.12

Second Appeal. The present Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 5^th June, 2008.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants stated in the paragraph-5 of the Civil Application that the Applicants learnt that the Respondents are trying to sell the agricultural land to the third party. The Applicants state that the adjoining owner of the suit agricultural land one Mr. Balu Manik Kolekar informed the Applicants that the Respondents were making enquiry with him regarding the suit agricultural land. Therefore, they apprehend that during the pendency of the present Second Appeal, the Respondents may create any third party right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. Hence, the present Civil Application.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/3 makes a statement that they are not going to create any third party right, title and interest in respect of the suit property till the hearing and final disposal of the Second Appeal. As no one appeared on behalf of other Respondents and there is no Affidavit-in-Reply to that effect, in the interest of justice, it is

3 of 4

S. S. MORMARE

905.cas.404.12

necessary to restrain the Respondents from creating any third party right, title and interest in respect of the suit property till the hearing and final disposal of the Second Appeal. If injunction is not granted in favour of the Applicants, the Second Appeal will become infructuous.

¶30

Considering these facts, the Civil Application is allowed

¶31

in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:

¶32

“(a) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Second Appeal bearing no. 670 of 2000, the respondents, either through themselves, their agents, assignees, servants etc. be kindly restrained from creating third party right of whatsoever nature over the suit property more particularly described in para 1A and 1B of the plaint in RCS suit no. 345 of 1987 filed in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division Malshiras, District Solapur.”

¶33

The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(K. K. TATED, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

¶36

S. S. MORMARE

Shri Laxmandas Sundardas Doshi (Decd) by Heirs. v. Smt. Durga Durpabai Dattu Pise (Decd) by Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Laxmandas Sundardas Doshi (Decd) by Heirs. v. Smt. Durga Durpabai Dattu Pise (Decd) by Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivappa Sidram Kawachale Vs Ramling Sidram Kawachale

Jagannath Krishna Karle Vs Bhalseth Babaji Mudras

Musa Fakruddin Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal and Ors. Vs Hasanmiya Abdul Latif Mujawar (Deceased) the Lrs 1.1 Shaukat Hassnmiya Mujawar and Ors.

Ramu Annu Pujari and Anr. Vs Ravso Tipanna Hukunde

Ramu Annu Pujari and Anr. Vs Ravso Tipanna Hukunde