Dismissed

Murlidhar Kishanrao Shinde v. Mukind Tukaram Shinde and Others

Bombay HC2 Feb 2022WP/34/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a stay application. The court found the petitioner failed to substantiate a claim of a prior status quo order and held the appeal outcome would not be prejudiced by decree execution regarding ancestral partition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; no costs awarded.

Murlidhar Kishanrao Shinde Vs Mukind Tukaram Shinde and Others — Partition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.34 OF 2022

¶4

Murlidhar Kishanrao Shinde Age: 65 yrs, Occ. Agri R/o Ganeshpar, Parli Tq. Parli Dist. Beed. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mukind Tukaram Shinde

¶7

Age 60 yrs occ Agri

¶8

Ahilyabai Tukaram Shinde (Now dead)

¶9

Prayagbai Tukaram Shinde (Now dead)

¶10

Sojarbai Datta Shinde Age Major occ HH

¶11

Shivaji Yadav Randive Age 45 yrs occ Agri All r/o Shirshi(Bu) Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents …

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Vasantrao Bhavthankar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5 : Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar

¶13

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

¶14

DATE : 02^nd FEBRUARY, 2022

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the

¶17

consent of the parties.

¶18

This petition takes exception to the order dated 23-12-2021,

¶19

2 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶20

passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Gangakhed, below Exhibit24 in Regular Civil Appeal No.29/2018, thereby rejecting application for stay filed by the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner is the original defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suit No.7/2013 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for partition and separate possession of their ancestral property. The suit came to be decreed by order dated 20-02-2016. The sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner – original defendant No.2 was held to be not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶22

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decree preferred regular civil appeal along with delay condonation application. The delay was condoned and the appeal was registered as R.C.A. No.29/2018. In the said appeal, application Exhibit-24 is filed by the petitioner seeking stay to the execution of the decree. The said application is rejected by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶23

Heard the learned advocate for petitioner and the learned advocate for respondents.

¶24

The learned advocate for petitioner submits that during the pendency of application Exhibit-24 there was status quo order passed in

¶25

3 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶26

favour of the petitioner. He submits that substantially the appeal filed by the petitioner would be rendered infructuous in case stay is not granted in favour of the petitioner. He submits that he has good grounds and he has hopes to succeed in the appeal and therefore, since the execution proceeding is going on, the same is required to be stayed.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned advocate for respondents strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. By pointing out a specific statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, he submitted that at no point of time interim order of status quo was passed in favour of the petitioner and this is an incorrect statement made by the petitioner. Further, by relying on the decision in Gitabai Bhagwan Pardeshi @ Geetabai Sanjay Rajput Vs. Hirkanbai Aadhar Patil and Others , reported in 2020(6) Mh.L.J. 432 , he submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of status quo order in his favour. He supports the impugned order passed by the appellate Court.

¶28

The petitioner – original defendant No.2 has purchased a part of the suit property which is directed to be partitioned and the trial Court has held that defendant No.1 Sojarabai has executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner – defendant No.2. It was not on

¶29

4 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶30

account of joint family necessity and defendant No.1 had no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 though appeared but they did not file any written statement. The trial Court has decreed the suit.

¶31

The learned advocate for petitioner was not in a position to substantiate from record his statement that status quo order was passed in favour of the petitioner. When asked, he submitted that, on instructions of the petitioner the said statement was made. However, he is unable to point out from record that status quo order was passed in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the statement of the respondents in affidavit-in-reply that no such status quo order was ever passed in favour of the petitioner is liable to be accepted. Admittedly, the decree is passed for partition and separate possession. In that view of the matter, even if the decree is allowed to be executed the land in question would be partitioned amongst the plaintiffs and defendants and even if the petitioner succeeds ultimately in the appeal, the petitioner will be entitled to claim the land falling to the share of his vendor i.e. defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, there is no need to grant status quo in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

5 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶33

The appellate Court has passed a well reasoned order and

¶34

has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for grant of stay in his favour. No error or illegality is found in the impugned order.

¶35

The ratio in Gitabai Bhagwan Pardeshi (supra) supports the case of the respondents.

¶36

For the aforestated reasons, no merit is found in the challenge raised by the petitioner. The writ petitioner, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

¶37

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶38

6 928-WP-34-22.odt

¶39

SVH

Murlidhar Kishanrao Shinde v. Mukind Tukaram Shinde and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Kishanrao Shinde v. Mukind Tukaram Shinde and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikrishna Laxman Chaudhari Vs Chitrarekha Balmukund Chaudhari through Her Power of Attorney Holder and Another

Syed Shakiluddin Syed Moinoddin and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Jalilkha Abbaskha Pathan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satwa Rangrao Kale Vs Jankiram Pralhad Shinde

Bibishan Sandipan Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Girna Vidya Prasarak Mandal Mehunbare the Registered Public Trust Thr Its Secretary Vs the Tahasildar and Another