In a simple writ petition challenging lower court orders in a suit for permanent injunction regarding suit property possession, the High Court held that the lower court's conclusion that the respondent established possession via sale deed and 7/12 extract does not call for interference. The petition was dismissed.
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.
1
0204wp2866.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2866 of 2012
(Bhanudas Shankar Aghadate v. Sau. Kalavatibai Babulal Aghadate and another)
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order
Shri J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.P. Mahalle, Advocate, holding for Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 2nd April, 2014
In a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent No.1-plaintiff over the suit property, the Trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from disturbing the possession of the respondent No.1-plaintiff. This order is maintained in the misc. civil appeal by the learned District Judge, Akola. Hence, the defendant is before this Court.
The petitioner-defendant claims to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 16-5-1997, said to have been executed by one Dharmaji Dandi, the original owner, the receipt of payment of Rs.70,000/-
2
0204wp2866.12.odt
dated 19-6-1997, and the copies of the 7/12 extracts for the period from 2001 to 2010. The respondent No.1-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale-deed dated 5-6-1998, said to have been executed by the original owner Dharmaji Dandi in her favour. The reliance is placed upon the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Balapur, on 18-7-2011.
Both the Courts below have considered all the documents placed on record by the respondent No.1-plaintiff and the petitioner-defendant. On the basis of the contents of the sale-deed dated 5-6-1998 and the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Balapur, on 18-7-2011, it has been held that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has established her possession over the suit property. The petitioner-defendant is the signatory to the sale-deed dated 5-6-1998 executed by the original owner Dharmaji Dandi in favour of one Sham Bhirad, from whom the respondent No.1-plaintiff has purchased the suit property. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible view of the matter, which does not call for interference.
The petition is dismissed.
Judge
PDL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging lower court orders in a suit for permanent injunction calls for interference.
Whether the lower courts' view regarding the respondent's possession after establishment by sale deed and 7/12 order calls for interference.
Bhanudas Shankar Aghadate
Kalavatibai Babulal Aghadate
R.K. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
