Dismissed

M/S. Sai Samrudhi Developers and 2 Ors., v. Shri Ashok Yeshwant Gaonkar and 22 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2013WP/500/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the writ petition seeking to interfere with lower courts granting temporary injunctions. The Court found no error in relying on Article 2184 of the Portuguese Civil Code to deny defendant's title claim and held no interference was called for under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The hearing of the suit was expedited.

M/S. Sai Samrudhi Developers and 2 Ors., Vs Shri Ashok… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITIONS NO.737/2012 & 500/2013

¶4

M/S SAI SAMRUDHI DEVELOPERS AND 2 ORS.

¶5

….PETITIONERS

¶6

V/S

¶7

SHRI ASHOK YESHWANT GAONKAR AND 22 ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

¶8

Shri A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents No.1,2,4 & 5. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶10

DATE : 15/10/2013

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the orders passed by the Trial Court granting temporary injunction dated 10/12/2009, which has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 18/05/2012.

¶13

The case of the plaintiffs that they are co-owners of the property in question has been accepted by the Courts below on the basis of the material which is there on record at the prima facie stage. The case of the defendants that the property surveyed under no.292/0 is of their ownership has been concurrently rejected by the Courts below. The Courts below have taken into consideration the Sale Deed executed in

¶14

¶15

favour of the father of the Defendant no.5 i.e. Shantaram Gajanan Prabhu dated 28/03/1955 which is in respect of 1/4^th share in the property Kalshet the application made in the year 1981 by some of the plaintiffs along with the said Shataram Prabhu for deletion of the names from the column of the occupants which were wrongly included instead of the proper coowners which includes the suit property. The said material prima facie indicated that the property is not partitioned and that the plaintiffs are co-

¶16

owners. The Courts below have also relied upon Article 2184 of the Portuguese Civil Code which provides that the partition of the immovable assets is null if not carried out in a public deed or proceedings. The Courts below having deemed it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs, in my view, no interference is called for with the said discretion in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the hearing of the suit is expedited.

¶18

R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶19

NH/-

M/S. Sai Samrudhi Developers and 2 Ors., v. Shri Ashok Yeshwant Gaonkar and 22 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sai Samrudhi Developers and 2 Ors., v. Shri Ashok Yeshwant Gaonkar and 22 Ors.

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

Shri Uday Babuli Chari Vs Shri Jaganath Pai Bir (Deceased) through Lr'S and Ors.

The Vasco Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh Rep. by Its General Secretary Shri. Puti Gaonkar and 12 Ors.

Mrs. Rupali Ravji Gawas and Anr., Vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through Its the Member Secretary

Mr. Ranaditya S. Banerjee Vs Mr.Somnath Sarkar

Mrs. Maria Celesta Lucia Cecilia Cota Viegas and 6 Ors., Vs Shri Hubert Correia and 7 Ors.

Mrs. Maria Celesta Lucia Cecilia Cota Viegas and 6 Ors., Vs Shri Hubert Correia and 7 Ors.