Dismissed

Ramesh Indrasen Bhise and Another v. Kamraj Baburao Bhise and Another

Bombay HC5 Feb 2013WP/1005/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a District Court order allowing a temporary injunction to the plaintiff for construction on disputed property, the High Court found no case for interference under Article 227 as the High Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition but directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order as to costs; trial court and suit disposed within nine months.

Ramesh Indrasen Bhise and Another Vs Kamraj Baburao Bhise… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P. No.1005/13

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.1005 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 05.02.2013.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction, along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal. The defendant has assailed the said order.

¶15

Mr.Shinde, learned counsel submits that the suit property is a joint family property. The same is purchased from the joint family funds. The plaintiff does not have any authority to carry out any construction on the same. No partition has been effectuated till now. Another suit bearing RCS No.48/2010 is filed by one Indrasen which is pending which shows that the property is not yet

¶16

¶17

W.P. No.1005/13

¶18

partitioned. The plaintiff and defendants in the present suit are parties in the said suit. Only because the name of the plaintiff appears in the revenue record, that will not mean that plaintiff is owner of the property. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the injunction application.

¶19

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders. The District Court has observed that since 1962-63, the property appears in the name of the plaintiff. There is also a mutation entry evidencing partition. The District Court has also observed that construction permission has been granted. In case the partition suit is decreed, the parties would be entitled to the share even in respect of suit house.

¶20

The reasons given by the District Court are plausible one, based on prima facie case.

¶21

In light of the above, no case for interference is made out in the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Needless to state, the observations made at the time of deciding Exh.5 are only prima facie in nature and the trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on the basis of the evidence

¶24

¶25

adduced, dehors the observations made herein. Taking into account, the relations between the parties, the trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine

¶26

(9) months.

¶27

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶28

Dt.05.02.2013. asp/office/wp1005.13

¶29

¶30

W.P. No.1005/13

Ramesh Indrasen Bhise and Another v. Kamraj Baburao Bhise and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Indrasen Bhise and Another v. Kamraj Baburao Bhise and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Baburao Sapkal Vs Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal and Ors.

Manikrao Venkatti Yennawar Vs Shankarrao Hanmantrao Mahajan and Ors.

Trisharan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Chandrashekhar Sudhakar Merkute and Ors.

Sumanbai Popatrao Bargal and Ors. Vs Subid Khan Sabrati Khan and Ors.

Sangitabai Baliram Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwan Kashinath Terkar Vs Maruti Ganpat Mule