Dismissed

Deelip Shankar Padmar v. Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2013WP/562/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions seeking to quash the District Court's order refusing an injunction in a succession/possession dispute between husband and wife buyers and respondents. The Court upheld the lower court's view based on prima facie evidence of defendants' cultivation and a statement by the predecessor-in-title regarding property usage, finding no error in the appellate cour

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Deelip Shankar Padmar Vs Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

W.P. No.562/2013 with W.P. No.570/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2013

¶5

Deelip Shankar Padmar ... PETITIONER VERSUS Navan Dashrath Patil & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner Shri Jain, Advocate holding for Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for respondents ..... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.570 OF 2013 Manisha Deelip Padmar ... PETITIONER VERSUS Navan Dashrath Patil & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for respondents .....

¶6

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶7

DATED: 18th February, 2013.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The petitioners in both these suits are the plaintiffs who had filed suit for injunction restraining the defendants from

¶10

W.P. No.562/2013 with W.P. No.570/2013

¶11

¶12

interfering in their possession. The temporary injunction applications are allowed by the Court. The defendants filed appeals before the District Court. The said appeals are allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.

¶13

The petitioners in both these petitions are husband and wife, who have purchased adjoining properties from the common predecessor-in-title.

¶14

Shri Brahme, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, the petitioners are the legitimate owners and possessors of the suit properties. The petitioners have purchased the suit properties by registered sale deeds executed by the original owners. The names of the petitioners are also mutated in the relevant revenue record in the ownership and possession columns. The trial Court, after considering all these aspects, had rightly clamped injunction against the respondents. The respondents do not have semblance of title with the suit properties, but are unnecessarily interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. Simply on ground that for a period of four months the Tahsildar has held that the defendants had cultivated the property, the District Court has refused injunction. The statement of Deelip before the Circle Officer has been misconstrued. The veracity and the context in which the said statement is made, is not proved. According to the learned counsel, at the time of trial, the said alleged statement will have to be considered. The same could not have been relied at this stage without the proof of the same. According to the learned

¶15

W.P. No.562/2013 with W.P. No.570/2013

¶16

¶17

counsel, when the plaintiffs are the owners of the property and there is recital of delivery of possession in the registered instrument, the same ought to have been relied by the Court. As far as affidavits are concerned, there is word against word. According to the learned counsel, the appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court.

¶18

Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supports

¶19

the order.

¶20

No doubt the appellate Court has to be loath in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. However, the appellate Court has given reasons for interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. The statement given by the petitioner Deelip has been produced on record. The said statement is before the Circle Inspector, which states that his predecessor-in-title Shri Waghmode had given the said property i.e. Gat Nos.158/1 and 158/2 on batai basis to Naval Dashrath Patil, naturally meaning thereby, for cultivation. It is for the petitioners to explain the said statement in what context it is made. No such explanation is coming forth at this stage. The presumption is in favour of continuity of possession. It is for the petitioners to show as to when the possession was taken by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and handed over to the petitioners. The parties can no doubt lead evidence in respect of the same, but for considering the prima facie case, the said statement would be relevant.

¶21

W.P. No.562/2013 with W.P. No.570/2013

¶22

¶23

Coupled with the said statement, there is also an order of the Tahsildar holding that it is the defendants who have cultivated the lands.

¶24

At this stage, the Courts are only required to look into the prima facie possession, taking into account the conspectus of the matter, the Court has arrived at the plausible conclusion. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶25

Needless to state, the observations, made by the courts below and by this Court while deciding the interim application, are prima facie in nature and the Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶26

Taking into consideration the fact that the injunction application is rejected, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

(S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶28

fmp/wp562.13

Deelip Shankar Padmar v. Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deelip Shankar Padmar v. Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr.

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

Narayan Laxman Dubale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Meenabai Babanrao Sukre and Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Tukaram Appa Mirge Vs the Spl..Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Govind Tukaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. Vs Chitra Prashant Kasture and Ors.

Madhukar Ramrao Gadhe and Others Vs Sadashiv Bhagwantrao Gadhe and Others