Allowed

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar and Another v. Waman Vitthal Dandekar and Oithers

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024IA/14700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order rejecting interim relief in a property suit was allowed. The High Court set aside the lower court order and restrained respondents from dispossessing or alienating the suit property without following due process.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; respondents restrained from dispossessing or alienating suit property No. 1 (Flat B-208, Sai Srushti CHS) without following due process.

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar and Another vs Waman Vitthal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

15.AO.801.2024.doc

¶2

ANANT KRISHNA NAIK

¶3

Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Date: 2024.11.2113:17:28 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 801 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14700 OF 2024 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 801 OF 2024

¶6

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar And Another ...Appellants/Applicants Versus

¶7

Waman Vitthal Dandekar And Ors. ...Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Dushyant Pagare i/b. Mr. M. V. Thorat for the Appellants. Mr Rajesh Kachare a/w. Kashvi Ali for the Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶12

DATED : 19^th NOVEMBER 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶15

The Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 30/09/2024 passed on Draft Notice of Motion in S. C. Suit No. 2031 of 2024 by Ad-Hoc Judge City Civil Court, Borivali Div., Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said impugned order, adinterim relief is rejected.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and daughter of Avinash Dandekar, son of Respondent No. 1-Waman Vitthal Dandekar. He pointed out that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are son and daughters of the Respondent No. 1 Waman Vitthal Dandekar. The relationship between the parties is not

1/3

akn

15.AO.801.2024.doc

disputed. Thus, this is a dispute between the closely related parties.

¶21

At the outset, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted on instructions, that presently he is restricting his prayer to property no. 1 being Flat B-208, Sai Srushti CHS, New Link Road, Chikuwadi, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Perusal of the motion shows that the Appellants are praying for injunction restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Appellants from the suit property no. 1 and from selling disposing and/or creating 3^rd party interest therein.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that so far as the property no. 1-Flat B-208 is concerned, it was initially exclusively owned by the Respondent No. 1, his wife and the Respondent No. 2. He submits that after the death of the wife of the Respondent No. 1, he has executed registered gift deed dated 31/03/2024 in favour of the Respondent No. 2 (son).

¶23

Prima facie, fact remains that the share of the wife of the Respondent No. 1 would devolve upon all sons and the daughters including the husband of Appellant No. 1, through whom, the Appellants are claiming.

¶24

Since the dispute is at ad-interim stage in suit as on today, I am refraining from commenting any further about exclusive ownership of the properties involved, as the same may prejudice either side.

¶25

In light of this position, when the impugned order is considered, the reason stated therein that the Defendant No. 1 being Karta is entitled to dispose of the subject matter property for the benefit of the family, cannot be sustained. The motion will have to be heard on its own merits and on appreciation of the evidence in the light of well settled guiding principles of

2/3

akn

15.AO.801.2024.doc

prima facie case, balance of convenience and irrepairable loss.

¶30

In that view of the matter, following order is passed:

¶31

(a) The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/09/2024 is set aside.

¶32

(b) The Respondents are restrained from dispossessing the Appellants from the suit property no. 1 being Flat B-208, Sai Srushti CHS, New Link Road, Chikuwadi, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092, without following due process law and the Respondents are further restrained from dealing with or disposing of or alienating the said suit property No. 1.

¶33

¶34

(d) The motion will be decided in accordance with law, on merits, without being influenced by the observations in this order. Rival contentions of both the sides are kept expressly open.

¶35

(e) Appeal from order and pending interim application are disposed of in above terms.

¶36

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶37

3/3

¶38

akn

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar and Another v. Waman Vitthal Dandekar and Oithers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar and Another v. Waman Vitthal Dandekar and Oithers

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

Similar cases

Digambar Parshuram Mhaskar vs Dattatraya Gokul Shinde and Ors.

Mr. Devilal B. Kothari vs Sanjay Shantilal Kothari and Anr.

Sagar Satish Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Vimalkumar Sancar and Another vs Smt. Vilma Fernandes @ Vilma Maria Da Fatima Fernandes and Others

Chaya Prakash Bali and Ors. vs Amar Iranna Bali

Mrs. Archana Avinash Dandekar and Another vs Waman Vitthal Dandekar and Oithers