Dismissed

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. v. Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase

Bombay HC12 Feb 2013WP/1160/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by co-owners challenging a temporary injunction passed by the District Court in a suit for possession. The High Court held that the trial court correctly relied on the revenue record and possession evidence without interference unless a case is made out.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Trial Court to decide suit on merits.

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. Vs Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 WP 1160.2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2013

¶3

Pandhari S/o Khandu Bhadange & others .. Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sandipan S/o Vithalrao Surwase

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent sole

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The respondent/ Original plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction before the Trial Court. The said application is rejected. The respondent/ Original Plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was allowed. The Original defendants have filed the present petition assailing the order of District Court.

¶11

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property is joint one, which can be clear from

¶12

2 WP 1160.2013

¶13

the report of the Police Inspector in proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that revenue entry in the name of plaintiff is also challenged and the dispute is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the statement of Mohan in a proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, supports the fact that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. Anita was divorced from Umakant way back in the year 2000, and thereafter, both had married separately. Anita had no right, title and interest to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff. The entry in the name of plaintiff is recent one. The Court have not properly read the revenue entry showing the right of defendant in the well. According to the learned counsel, the Court ought to have considered the factual position as on the date of the suit. The District Court has failed to consider the same.

¶14

Shri Urgunde, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the order and submits that the District Court has rightly considered the possession of the property. The affidavits of the adjoining owners of the land also supports the case of the plaintiff so also the revenue record.

¶15

3 WP 1160.2013

¶16

With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and decree. The District Court had considered the fact that in possession column, the name of the plaintiff appears in the revenue record. The District Court has also considered the affidavits of adjoining owners, so also entry in the name of defendant No. 1, of Gut NO. 113. The District Court has also observed that there is no record to show that Umakant and Anita took divorce. The District Court on considering prima facie evidence has arrived at a plausible conclusion. The Writ Petition cannot be entertained only on the ground that some other view may be possible.

¶17

In the light of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall no order as to costs.

¶18

Needless to state that the aforesaid observations made by this Court, and the Courts below are only prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits.

¶19

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶20

SDM*/fEB.13

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. v. Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. v. Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase

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

Vinayak Madhavrao Humbarde Vs Sunita Vinayakrao Humbarde and Anr.

Balasaheb Narsinghrao Kapse Vs Western Region Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Thr Manager and Anr.

Gurusidhappa Shankarappa Malkatte Vs Jagdevi Panditrao Wakade and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Snehal Yeshwant Dhande and Ors.

Vinayak Engineering Works Vs the Tina Oil and Chemicals Ltd. Co. and Anr.

Yuvraj Zinga Patil and Another Vs Zinga Narayan Patil and Others