Writ petitioner sought reversal of interim injunction in a suit concerning land possession claimed via oral agreement and ostensible sale. The single judge dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court's finding in favor of the respondent.
Writ petition dismissed; Rule discharged.
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.
2004.18WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2018
Shivlal Shamlal Thakare Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o: At/Post Akhade, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule ...Petitioner
Versus
Tukaram Vithal Patil Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculturist & Practicing Lawyer, R/o: At/Post. Vasdare Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. ...Respondent
Mr. S. P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Subhodh P. Shah, Advocate for respondent/sole
[CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] Date: 8th August, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
by consent of parties.
defendant in regular civil suit bearing no. 38 of 2016 in respect of land bearing Gat no. 350/6, admeasuring 1 hectare and 99.3 aar, situated at Akhade taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule.
2004.18WP.odt
2
2004.18WP.odt
3
loan with interest. However, the respondent refused to execute conveyance of suit property in favour of petitioner and taking disadvantage of ostensible sale deed, regular civil suit no. 38 of 2016 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for injunction simplicitor along with application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction. Said application came to be allowed on 31st March, 2017. Miscellaneous civil appeal no. 28 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against aforesaid order date 31st March, 2017 has also been dismissed under order dated 28th November, 2017, by appellate court.
2004.18WP.odt
4
evidence of possession nor those create any presumption of petitioner's possession. Both the courts concur on refusal to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner. No circumstances have been brought forth to overturn and meddle with decision rendered refusing to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner. At this stage, case may not carry any substance in favour of petitioner.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
vdk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere in the interim order of injunction in a possession suit
Shivlal Shamlal Thakare
Tukaram Vithal Patil
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
