Dismissed

Shri.Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane and Ors. v. Jayshree Bhagwat Sandbhor

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024IA/10368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against injunction decree on a counter-claim for possession based on an unchallenged sale deed. The court held the appellant must seek a declaration voiding that sale deed rather than presume it void, found no perversity in appellate findings, and rejected the second appeal, disposing of interim applications and declining continuation of ad-interim relief.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri.Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane and Ors. Vs Jayshree… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

911 sa 307.21 n ia as.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.307 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3441 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.307 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2716 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.307 OF 2021

¶5

Jayshree Bhagwant Sandbhor ....Appellant
V/S
Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane & Ors. ....Respondents

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10368 OF 2022 IN

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO.307 OF 2021

¶8

Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Jayshree Bhagwant Sandbhor ....Appellant
V/S
Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane & Ors. ....Respondents

¶9

Mr. Tejas D. Deshmukh a/w Ms. S.S. Mohanty for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Nitin Gaware-Patil a/w Mr. Mohan Bapu Gawade for Respondent
No.1/Applicant.

¶10

Page No. 1 of 5 20 March 2024

¶11

katkam

¶12

911 sa 307.21 n ia as.doc

¶13

k 2/5

¶14

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 20 MARCH 2024.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges concurrent findings of the
Trial and the First Appellate Court in Suit (Counter-Claim) filed by
Respondent No.1 for injunction simplicitor. The Trial Court decreed the
Counter-Claim filed by Respondent No.1 on 18 September 2009 and has
injuncted the Appellant as well as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from interfering
with possession of the suit property.

¶17

2It appears that initially the Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.163 of
2002 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 4 November
2000 executed by Shantarao Pandurang Kulkarni in her favour. It appears that
such Shantarao Pandurang Kulkarni sold north-east portion of the land
admeasuring 80 R in favour of Respondent No.1-Prabhakar Krushnaji Kekane.
On the strength of the said sale deed, said Prabhakar Krishnaji Kekane filed a
Counter-Claim seeking injunction against the original Plaintiff/Appellant from
interfering his possession of the purchased land. Later the suit was
compromised between the Appellant and original vendor- Shantarao
Pandurang Kulkarni who executed a sale deed in Appellant’s favour on 10
March 2003 and this is why the suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiff.
Respondent No.1 however continued prosecuting the Counter-Claim in
respect of his relief for injunction. The Trial Court proceeded to allow the

¶18

katkam Page No. 2 of 5 20 March 2024

¶19

911 sa 307.21 n ia as.doc
k 3/5

¶20

Counter-Claim by decree dated 18 September 2009 which is confirmed by the
First Appellate Court.

¶21

3I have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant and Mr. Gaware, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.1.

¶22

4It is Mr. Deshmukh’s contention that the sale deed executed in favour
of Respondent No.1 on 25 June 2001 is void as the permission granted to
Shantanu Pandurang Kulkarni for sale of land in favour of Respondent No.1
was cancelled on 6 September 2001. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that in
absence of sale permission, the very transaction of sale in favour of
Respondent No.1 is void and since Respondent No.1 does not have valid title
to the land, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the claim for injunction. He
would further submit that the First Appellate Court’s finding about issuance
of permission for sale of land to Respondent No.1 suffers from the vice of
perversity.

¶23

5I have considered the submissions canvassed by Mr. Deshmukh. If the
Appellant believes the sale deed executed by the original vendor in favour of
Respondent No.1 is void due to lack of sale permission, it is for the Appellant
to take necessary steps to challenge the sale deed dated 25 June 2001. Before
the Trial Court, while deciding the Counter-Claim, there was no contest to

¶24

katkam Page No. 3 of 5 20 March 2024

¶25

911 sa 307.21 n ia as.doc
k 4/5

¶26

the sale deed dated 25 June 2001. The Counter-Claim of Respondent No.1
was for injunction simplicitor. He claims possession of the suit property by
relying on sale deed dated 25 June 2001. The remit of enquiry in a suit for
injunction simplicitor into title of Plaintiff (Counter-Claimant) was limited.
Once the Counter-Claimant produced a sale deed in his name and in absence
of any challenge to that sale deed, the only enquiry that the Trial Court was
required to conduct was about the aspect of possession. In my view therefore
the Trial Court has rightly granted injunction in favour of Respondent No.1.

¶27

6So far as perversity in the finding of the First Appellate Court is
concerned, the finding recorded by it in paragraph 19 of the judgment is not to
justify or validate the permission dated 20 June 2001 granted in favour of
Respondent No.1. The reference to permission order dated 20 June 2001 is
made by the First Appellate Court essentially to indicate the location of land
in respect of which the permission was granted. Therefore no perversity can
be traced in the said finding of the First Appellate Court.

¶28

7 In my view it is for the Appellant to take necessary steps, if she believes the sale deed dated 25 June 2001 executed in favour of Respondent No.1 is void due to absence of sale permission. She cannot proceed on a presumption that the sale deed has automatically become void without seeking a declaration to that effect. It must also be observed that the Appellant took a calculated chance of purchasing the property which was already sold to Respondent No.1 without first getting a declaration about sale deed dated 25 katkam Page No. 4 of 5 20 March 2024

¶29

911 sa 307.21 n ia as.doc
k 5/5

¶30

June 2001 being void. In absence of any challenge to the sale deed dated 25
June 2001 the injunction granted in favour of Respondent No.1 need not be
disturbed.

¶31

8No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal, the Second
Appeal is rejected. However, rejection of Second Appeal shall not come in the
way of the Appellant prosecuting her remedies in respect of challenge to the
sale deed dated 25 June 2001 and consequential prayers in that regard.

¶32

9With rejection of Second Appeal, Interim Applications taken out by the
Applicants do not survive. The same are also accordingly disposed of.

¶33

10After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Deshmukh would request for
continuation of ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 11 July 2022. It
appears that the ad-interim relief is only in respect of effecting of mutation
entry. It is well settled position that mere revenue records are not
determinative of title of parties to the land in question. In that view of the
matter, ad-interim relief granted by this Court need not be continued any
further. The prayer is accordingly rejected.

¶34

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2024.03.21 15:02:32 +0530

¶36

Page No. 5 of 5 20 March 2024

¶37

katkam

Shri.Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane and Ors. v. Jayshree Bhagwat Sandbhor

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri.Prabhakar Krushnaji Kokane and Ors. v. Jayshree Bhagwat Sandbhor

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Percept Finserve Private Limited vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Shalini Dilip Gamre vs the Registrar, Bombay Hospital

Roadsinh Pruthvisinh Chadana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Machindra J. Bamne vs Union of India

Smt. Ashamma Jalaluddin Ghori Vs Hajrat Ladleshaha Peer Saheb Dargah Thr. Shri. Akhtrhusen Babaso Mujawar and Ors.

Happy Arts, Thr. Shri. Vedmoorti Gangadas Machha Vs Sham Mahadev Adhav