This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging interim injunctions granted in a partition suit. The court held that lower courts were not perverse or arbitrary in granting relief, as parties occupied separate shares even though the property was legally undivided.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
Priya Soparkar
907 wp 2121-17-c
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2017
Dyanu Mhadu Patil and anr. ... Petitioners Vs. Sonappa Padhurang Shisal and ors. … Respondents
Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr.T.S.Ingale with Mr. Nikhil Pawar for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2018. P.C. :
August 2016, and 27th December 2016, made by the learned Trial Judge and the learned Appeal Judge respectively granting relief of temporary injunction to the Respondent No.1 (original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 272 of 2016).
Priya Soparkar 2 907 wp 2121-17-c
the bare perusal of the averment of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs are themselves unsure of the precise share to which stay are entitled or rather, which is the precise portion of the property, they have purchased by means of sale deed from the vendor from out the entire property. He submits that it is for these reasons that relief is sought by the plaintiffs for appointment of officers from the TILR to demarcate the property.
Priya Soparkar 3 907 wp 2121-17-c
Mankapure submits that the impugned orders by which an injunction has been granted are ex-facie illegal and deserve to be vacated.
Priya Soparkar 4 907 wp 2121-17-c
“The appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.”
Court have concurrently favoured granting of interim relief. The two courts not only considered the documents on record, but also relied upon the Commissioner's report. No doubt the two courts have held that the property as on date is undivided. At the same time, the two courts have returned the prima facie findings that the parties are in occupation of separate shares, may be, for the sake of convenience. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion is vitiated by any patent error of principle or unreasonability or perversity.
1 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727
Priya Soparkar 5 907 wp 2121-17-c
documents by which both the petitioners as well as the Respondents have purchased the portions of the suit property, taking into consideration the circumstance that some boundaries are stated and also specific area is referred to, it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion by two courts concurrently is vitiated by any unreasonability or perversity so as to warrant interference.
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts in granting temporary injunction in a partition suit.
Whether the impugned orders granting temporary injunction are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
Whether the grant of interim injunction is vitiated by patent error of principle or unreasonability in a suit for partition and demarcation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Ltd. and anr. Vs. Antox India P. LtdReferred¶23
Wander Ltd. and anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dyanu Mhadu Patil and anr.
Sonappa Padhurang Shisal and ors.
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
