Dismissed

Nest India Builders and Developers v. Pandurang Laxman Dhone (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2017AO/467/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal which was against an order that had held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining respondents from transferring suit property. The Court also disposed of the accompanying civil application which no longer survived after the dismissal of the appeal. The Court further stated that these were prima facie observ

What the court decided

AI extract

Nest India Builders and Developers Vs Pandurang Laxman… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

32_ao_467_2015 with caa_601_2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.467 OF 2015

¶3

NEST INDIA Builders and Developers

¶4

...Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pandurang Laxman Dhone, since deceased through Legal Heirs - 1A) Smt. Barkubai Pandurang Dhone & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Parag M. Tilak for the Appellant. Mr. Siddheshwar N. Biradar for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C, 2 to 11, 13 to 15, 17A to 17 D, 18 to 23 and 34.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 7^th JULY, 2017.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Heard Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Biradar, the learned counsel for the Respondents. I have perused the records and considered the findings rendered by the learned Trial Judge.

¶11

The Appellant herein is seeking to restrain the Respondents from transferring or creating any third party right in respect of the suit property, which is more particularly referred in the paragraph 2 of the plaint. The Appellant has claimed rights to the suit property based on an agreement dated 15^th June, 1997. The material on record prima facie indicates that the Respondent Nos.21 to 23 who were the owners

¶12

Megha

¶13

1/2

¶14

32_ao_467_2015 with caa_601_2015.doc

¶15

of the property had already transferred the suit property in favour of the Respondent Nos.25 to 29 in the year 2010 and the Respondent Nos.28 and 29 have further transferred the land in favour of the Respondent Nos.30 to 33. The material on record indicates that the Appellant had consented to the said transfer and had accepted the consideration. In the light of this fact, in my considered view, the learned Judge was justified in holding that the Appellant-Plaintiff has failed to establish the prima facie case. The delay in approaching the Court and the conduct of the Appellant does not justify grant of equitable relief. The Findings of the Trial Court are neither perverse nor arbitrary and hence, do not warrant interference. Hence, the Appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶16

It is made clear that these observations are prima observations and not expression on merits of the matter. It therefore, follows that the learned Trial Judge shall decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced by the observations of this Court or by the observations made in the impugned order.

¶17

In view of the dismissal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive and hence, stands disposed of.

¶18

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶19

Megha

¶20

2/2

Nest India Builders and Developers v. Pandurang Laxman Dhone (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nest India Builders and Developers v. Pandurang Laxman Dhone (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramdas Shrihari Dagade and Ors. Vs Shri Jaban @ Jagnath Balaji Dagade and Ors.

Tipu @ Sultan Latif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Shivajirao Anandrao Powar Vs Shri. Vasantrao Chaugule Nagari Sahakari Credit Society Ltd. Kolhapur and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. Vs Smt. Veena Jadhav and Ors.

Paper Products Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Secretary Shri. Samir J. Chavan Vs the Paper Products Ltd. and Anr.

Shaikh Toufik Shakil Vs the State of Maharashtra