Dismissed

Mrs. Manasi Milind Behere v. Shri Pandurang Anant Behere

Bombay HC18 Jun 2013SA/818/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Mumbai dismissed an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging a judgment in a suit for perpetual injunction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the trial and appellate courts had correctly refrained from adjudicating the nature of the property pending a partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under Section 100 CPC is dismissed; the second appeal judgment and decree are upheld.

Mrs. Manasi Milind Behere Vs Shri Pandurang… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

SA818_11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.818 OF 2011

¶4

Mrs. Manasi Milind Behere	…	Appellant
Vs.
Shri Pandurang Anant Behere and others	…	Respondents

¶5

Mr. P. S. Dani for the Appellant. Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. P. B. Gujar for the Respondent No.3.

¶6

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 18^TH JUNE, 2013

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard Mr. Dani, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Gujar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 at length.

¶9

By this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’), the original defendant No.2 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge4, Pune in Civil Appeal No.583 of 2008 thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune in Civil Suit No.727 of 2003. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for perpetual injunction restraining the original defendants from entering in flat Nos.101 and 201 situate in Survey No.1440, Shukrawar Peth, Pune.

¶10

In support of this Appeal, Mr. Dani submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had instituted Suit for perpetual injunction without claiming any

¶11

1/3

¶12

SA818_11.sxw

¶13

declaration. Despite that, the learned trial Judge has made observations as regards the nature of the property. He further submitted that the observations made in paragraph 8 of the judgment of the lower appellate court might come in the way of Suit for partition being Special Civil Suit No.1941 of 2009, which is instituted by the defendant No.2 for herself and her minor daughter. On the other hand, Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Gujar supported the impugned orders.

¶14

Perusal of paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge shows that the learned District Judge has dealt with this aspect and observed that it was not proper on the part of the learned trial Judge to adjudicate about the nature of the property as to whether it is a joint family property or a self-acquired property. Having observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment that the Suit being simplicitor for perpetual injunction, it would not be proper to adjudicate about the nature of the property. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the learned District Judge rightly observed that since the Suit is simplicitor for injunction, it was not necessary to deal with the nature of the property as to whether it is the joint family property or self-acquired property. More so, when the Suit for partition between the parties is pending. The learned District Judge has accordingly kept these questions open for adjudication in the partition Suit.

¶15

In view thereof, no interference is required in the orders passed by the Courts below as the learned District Judge, in paragraph 12, has specifically left those questions open.

¶16

The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence of record and it cannot be said that the said findings are perverse being based

¶17

2/3

¶18

SA818_11.sxw

¶19

on no evidence or that on the basis of evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. Merely because another view is possible on the basis of evidence, this Court will not be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C.

¶20

No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.

¶21

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶22

Minal Parab

¶23

3/3

Mrs. Manasi Milind Behere v. Shri Pandurang Anant Behere

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manasi Milind Behere v. Shri Pandurang Anant Behere

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

Shri Uttam Bandu Sonawane Vs Shri Subhash Uttam Sonawane and Ors.

Shri Prakash Bhosale and Others Vs Mr K.N. Narayanan.

Dilip Bhausaheb Pawar Vs Latif Yasin Shaikh

Shri Anant Vithal Revadekar Vs Shri Shridhar Sitaram Tikale

Narendra Hari Patil Vs Moreshwar Hari Patil

Bhimrao Baburao Nandurkar Vs Mangal Bhimrao Nandurkar