The High Court dismissed an applicant's civil application for injunction regarding disputed agricultural land. The court held that the applicant failed to prove purchase or possession in earlier proceedings and had withdrawn cross-objections, thereby accepting the trial court's decree.
civil application dismissed; no order as to costs
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
cas.615.2012
dik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2012 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.82 OF 2005
Bapu Ganapati Patil ... Applicant. Vs. Nanibai w/o Ananda Patil & Ors. ... Respondents.
Mr.S.M.Raikar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.T.S.Ingale, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1D, 12 to 14. Mr.V.B.Rajure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A(i) to 1A(iv), 1B(i), 1C(iii), 1D(i) to 1D(iv), 1E(i) to 1E(iii), 3A to 3D.
CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2012.
P.C.
the suit property in Court auction sale on 15th September, 1981. To that effect he relies on the sale certificate issued by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kagal in Regular Darkhast No.25 of 1980 ( this document is not produced by the Applicant before the Trial Court). It is the case of the Applicant that, since the date of the purchase i.e. 15th September, 1981 he is in possession of the suit property and therefore the Respondents be restrained from disturbing his possession.
The Respondent No.1 Nanibai (deceased) / original Plaintiff filed R.C.S.No.225 of 1983 in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kagal for partition of HUF property including Gat.No.320. In that suit the Applicant was joined as Defendant No.14. After hearing all the parties, the Trial Court held that the Respondent No.1/ original Plaintiff is entitled to share in the suit properties. At the same time, the Trial Court framed issue No.7 which read thus
“7. Whether defendant No.14 proves that northern side 1/2 portion out of Gat.No.320 is not liable for partition ?”
At the time of deciding issue No.7, Trial Court in Paras No.45 to 47 considered the documents produced by the parties on record. The Trial Court held that the Applicant/ original Defendant No.14 failed to produce the sale certificate dated 15th September, 1981 on record. Not only that the Trial Court also held that the Applicant/ original Defendant No.14 failed to show the possession of the suit property.
applicant original defendant No.14 and original Defendant Nos.11 to 13 and 15 preferred crossobjections. During the pendency of the said appeal Applicant original defendant No.14 filed purshis dated 11th November 2003 stating that the matter is settled out of the Court and therefore, he wants to withdraw his crossobjections. Later on original defendant No.1/Appellant in R.C.A.No.404 of 1998, filed Application dated 4th November 2003 stating that the matter is settled between the parties out of the Court and seeks permission to withdraw the Appeal. 5. Now the Applicant who is original Defendant No.14 seeks injunction restraining Respondent No.1 from disturbing his possession in respect of the suit property on the ground that he has purchased the suit property by sale certificate dated 15th September, 1981 and since then he is in possession.
R.C.A. No.404 of 1998 they withdrew the same on 11th November, 2003. Therefore, the Applicant has no right to claim any injunction against the Respondent No.1 in respect of the suit property. He also objected to consider the handwritten copy of consent term dated 24th August, 2003 which is at Exh.A to the rejoinder at Page No.32 on the ground that the consent terms were not placed on record at any time. On the basis of these submissions he submitted that there is no substance in the Civil Application and same be dismissed.
[ K.K.TATED, J ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an injunction should be granted to restrain respondents from disturbing the applicant's possession of property which the applicant failed to prove sale or possession for in earlier adjudicatio
Bapu Ganapati Patil
Nanibai w/o Ananda Patil
K.K.TATED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
