Disposed

Mrs. Shefali Milind Mangrulkar v. 1)MILIND Arvind Mangrulkar and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2013CAF/1700/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining respondents from disturbing the applicant's possession of a suit property pending the final disposal of the substantive appeal. The court declined to adjudicate execution issues under Section 47 CPC, directing those to the executing court.

What did the court decide?

Temporary injunction restraining respondents from disturbing applicant's possession pending final disposal of appeal.

1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The first respondent who is no more is the husband of the applicant. The applicant filed a suit for declaration that she is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The suit has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Substantive appeal of the applicant has been admitted.

2There is a reply filed to this application by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.960 of 2005 which was filed by him against M/s.Oskar Travels and Tours Private Limited through its Managing Director who

was the husband of the applicant. There is an exparte decree in the suit filed by the fourth respondent against M/s.Oskar Travels and Tours Private Limited in the sum of Rs.5,30,000/-. The submission of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent is that the applicant has failed to prove her ownership in respect of the suit property. His contention is that the fourth respondent wants to attach the suit property in execution of the said decree to recover the decretal amount by sale of the suit property.

3The relief prayed for in the present application is for injunction for protection of the possession of the applicant. There does not seem to be any dispute that the applicant is in possession of the suit property in respect of which relief has been sought. It is obvious that the applicant cannot be dispossessed by any of the respondents without following due process of law. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the decree passed in the suit filed by the fourth respondent is not executable against the suit property. His submission is that the applicant is the owner of the suit property and even assuming that her husband was the owner, the decree has been passed against the private limited company and not against her husband.

respondent is concerned, all issues will have to be decided by the Executing Court in accordance with section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate upon the issues which will have to be decided by the appropriate Executing Court.

(i)Till the final disposal of the appeal, the respondents are restrained by order of temporary injunction from disturbing the possession of the applicant over the suit property without following due process of law;

Mrs. Shefali Milind Mangrulkar v. 1)MILIND Arvind Mangrulkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Shefali Milind Mangrulkar v. 1)MILIND Arvind Mangrulkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mandakini Dattatray Hile Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr Niraj Mansukhlal Ved Vs Mr Jitendra K. Shah and Anr.

M/S.Suresh Enterprises Vs Mr Jitendra K. Shah and Anr.

Gururaj Narsinha Joshi Vs Milind Arvind Mangrulkar and Othrs

Mr. Uttam Sheka Kshirsagar Vs Mr. Shivshankar Sidramappa Mashalkar and Ors.

Mr. Suresh Sopan Kamble Vs Transport Ministry, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.