The High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent orders of trial and first appellate courts. The courts rightly refused temporary injunction as the petitioner had no prima facie title and the sale deed created a valid title in favour of the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp887-13.order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.887 of 2013
Shobha w/o Jitendra Agrawal.
Vs.
Jethmal s/o Tanumal Wadhawa and others.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr. Abhay Bhide, counsel for the petitioner.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 14th February, 2013.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner impugns two concurrent orders passed by the trial and the first appellate court holding that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit property. According to the petitioner one Jamnalal Sharma was initially the owner of the suit property. Sau. Vidhyadevi w/o Shankarlal Agrawal, the mother in law of the petitioner was the owner of the adjoining house. Since Vidhyadevi had taken care of Jamnalal during his life time, according to the petitioner-plaintiff, Jamnalal Sharma had made an oral gift of the suit property in favour of Vidhyadevi. After the death of Vidhyadevi, according to the petitioner, the petitioner came in possession of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that Jamnalal Shukla was a tenant of Vidhyadevi and the legal heirs of Jamnalal Shukla had illegally sold the property to the defendants and the defendants started disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the suit
wp887-13.order
property. The trial and the first appellate court disbelieved the case of the petitioner and declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the courts were justified in rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction. The court rightly found that prima facie the plaintiff had no right over the suit property. The sale deed dated 12.3.1998 had created a title in favour of the defendants. The courts held that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the petitioner. The orders appear to be just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the concurrent orders refusing temporary injunction over the suit property.
Whether the trial and first appellate courts were justified in finding that the petitioner had no prima facie right over the suit property.
Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised to interfere with the concurrent judgments declining the temporary injunction.
Shobha w/o Jitendra Agrawal
Jethmal s/o Tanumal Wadhawa and others
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
