Dismissed

Smt. Sheela Sunil Jadhav and Anr. v. Smt. Vimal Bhagwan Jadhav

Bombay HC9 Feb 2018AO/941/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal against an order of the trial Court granting injunction to maintain status quo and prevent alienation of three properties in a partition suit. The Court maintained the trial Court order.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court order dated 10th April 2015 maintained; parties restrained from alienating three specified flats.

Smt. Sheela Sunil Jadhav and Anr. Vs Smt. Vimal Bhagwan Jadhav — Partition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9.AO941_2015.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 941 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1145 OF 2015 IN A.O. NO. 941 OF 2015

¶5

Smt. Sheela Sunil Jadhav & Anr. ... Appellants/Applicants Vs. Smt. Vimal Bhagwan Jadhav ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Parab, Advocate for the appellants/applicants. Mr. Yuvraj R. Tribhuvan h/f. Mr Ajit S. Karwande, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 9^th February, 2018.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Admit. By consent, the Appeal is heard finally and decided at

¶10

the stage of admission.

¶11

This Appeal from Order is directed against the order dated 10^th April, 2015 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregan in Notice of Motion No. 486 of 2015 in S.C. Suit No. 316 of 2015 whereby allowing the Notice of Motion in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) is challenged. The respondent is the mother-in-law of appellant no. 1/original defendant no. 1. Appellant no. 2 is the minor son of appellant no. 1 and grandson of the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

9.AO941_2015.doc

¶14

declaration in respect of three properties, i.e., Flat at Andheri which is occupied by the respondent, Flat at Ghansoli occupied by the appellants and Flat at Mira Road is another third property. The respondent/plaintiff has sought an order of injunction against the appellants that they should not sell, transfer, alienate or deal with the properties in any manner and they shall not disturb the possession of the respondent/plaintiff and her family members from Flat No. 302, Sagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Off. Sahar Road, Andheri (East). The trial Court has granted this relief. Hence this Appeal.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the status quo is to be granted in respect of the properties. He submitted that the suit is filed for partition by the respondent/plaintiff and, therefore, the order of status quo is also to be passed against the respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent is present and submits to the order of the Court.

¶17

On perusal of the order, I do not find any requirement to interfere with the order. Considering the nature of the suit, relief

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

9.AO941_2015.doc

¶20

claimed therein and the order passed in the Notice of Motion, this

¶21

Appeal is disposed of by the following order:

¶22

(i) The order of the trial Court dated 10^th April, 2015 is hereby maintained;

¶23

(ii) The appellants and the respondent shall not create any third party right, part with the possession and transfer the flat at Andheri, Ghansoli and Mira Road in any manner;

¶24

(iii) The trial Court to proceed with the matter.

¶25

Civil Application is also accordingly disposed of.

¶26

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶27

3 / 3

Smt. Sheela Sunil Jadhav and Anr. v. Smt. Vimal Bhagwan Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheela Sunil Jadhav and Anr. v. Smt. Vimal Bhagwan Jadhav

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

Mr. Christopher Lopez Vs Master Ulal Raghavendra Nayak(Minor)His Mohter and Natural Guardian Sudha Raghavendra Nayak and Ors.

Ramesh Shakarlal Bhandari and Anr. Vs Keshav Vitthal Taware and Othrs

Dipak Shivraj Jadhav and Ors. Vs Vithal Balkrishna Devale and Anr.

Film Studios, Setting and Allied Mazdoor Union Vs Federation of Western India Cine Employees and Ors.

Mr. Pankaj Kishor Shah Vs Naresh Purshottam Khetan

Ramkrishna Pralhad Mahamuni (Since Decd. Thro. His L. H. ) Nandkumar Ramkrishna Mahamuni and Ors. Vs Vishwambhar Sakharam Mahamuni