Disposed

Dr. Sachinkumar Sukumar Suganavar v. Shri. Rajgonda Parisa Suganavar and Others

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024AO/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil appeal against rejection of interim injunction application. Court noted prima facie evidence of family partition and granted limited ad-interim relief that third-party interests would not bind appellant's share. Notice issued to respondents for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief granted: creation of third-party interest or encumbrance by Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 over suit properties will not bind the share of the Applicant.

Dr. Sachinkumar Sukumar Suganavar vs Shri. Rajgonda Parisa… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 17-AO-328-2024 C.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 328 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7891 OF 2024

¶4

Dr. Sachinkumar Sukumar Suganavar

... Appellant/

Applicant

Versus

Shri. Rajgonda Parisa Suganavar And Others

...Respondents

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.11.27 10:22:14 +0530

¶13

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Akshay Kulkarni for the Appellant. None for Respondents.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 26^th NOVEMBER 2024

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant, who is original Plaintiff. Suit is filed for declaration and injunction against his family members and certain financial institutions.

¶18

By the impugned orders dated 19.01.2024 and 22.02.2024, the application below Exh.5 seeking injunction against private Respondents, not to create 3^rd party interest or encumbrance and seeking injunction against the financial institutions not to proceed with sale of part of the suit properties for recovery of loans, are rejected.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Appellant has tendered a copy of a partition Deed dated 03.11.2014 asserting that the partition which has taken place in the family, is recorded thereunder by way of Remembrance Deed and as such its registration is not compulsory. He

¶20

Sneha Chavan

¶21

1/3

¶22

2 17-AO-328-2024 C.doc

¶23

submits that under the said Partition Deed, the family had agreed to dispose of certain specified properties for repayment of the loans taken by the family members. He submits that by order dated 08.12.2023, the learned Trial Judge had initially restrained the private Respondents from creating 3^rd party interest and from creating further encumbrances in respect of the suit property. However, by the impugned orders, the application is ultimately rejected. He submits that during the pendency of the suit, injunction is necessary, at least to the extent of Applicant’s share in the suit properties.

¶24

Perused the impugned orders. So far as private Respondents are concerned, their say is recorded in para 7 of the impugned order dated 22.02.2024. It appears that relationship between parties is not disputed. A stand is taken that there is no partition by metes and bound and partition deed relied upon by the Appellant is disputed for not being registered. In para 13 of the said impugned order, it is in fact recorded that 7/12 extracts filed on record by the private Respondents reveals ‘specific area next to concerned person’. This prima facie lends credence to the Appellant’s theory of partition. Non registration of the partition deed seems to have weighed with the Trial Court. Assuming that partition has not taken place, undivided share of the Appellant will have to be considered appropriately.

¶25

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is necessary to hear the private Respondents/family members as well as financial institutions.

¶26

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 17.12.2024. Hamdast is permitted. Applicant is also at liberty to serve privately and

¶27

Sneha Chavan

¶28

2/3

¶29

3 17-AO-328-2024 C.doc

¶30

file affidavit of service.

¶31

By way of ad-interim relief till the next date, if the Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 create any 3^rd party interest or encumbrance over the suit properties or part thereof, it will not bind the share of the Applicant.

¶32

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶33

Sneha Chavan

¶34

3/3

Dr. Sachinkumar Sukumar Suganavar v. Shri. Rajgonda Parisa Suganavar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sachinkumar Sukumar Suganavar v. Shri. Rajgonda Parisa Suganavar and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Chabutai Kallappa Hounje and Ors. Vs Balgonda Jingonda Patil(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Smt. Akkatai Balgonda Patil and Ors.

Mrs. Prasanna Vijay Salvi and Anr. vs Shri. Shekhar Gangaram Panvalkar and Ors.

Amasidh Jetappa Koli vs Gonapati Pirappa Koli, (Deceased)

Vijay Jaysingrao Patil vs Tukaram Balkrishna Jadhav

Jeevan Bhupal Pakhare and Anr. vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Vijay Raghunath Patil vs Sudhir Sitaram Pise Since Deceased through Legal Heirs