Dismissed

Umesh Ravavtar Sharma v. Shankuntala Ramavtar Sharma

Bombay HC13 Feb 2024IA/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute over possession of parental premises, the Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to vacate by 30 May 2023. The petitioner was directed not to create third-party rights and disposed of the writ petition, relying on precedent regarding rights during parents' lifetime.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking to vacate on or before 30 May 2023 was accepted; Writ Petition and Interim Applications dismissed.

Umesh Ravavtar Sharma Vs Shankuntala Ramavtar Sharma — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

912 WP10492-23WITHIA(1).DOC

¶2

Mohite

¶3

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2024.03.11 14:36:08 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10492 of 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.457 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.828 OF 2024

¶6

Umesh Ravavtar Sharma … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shankuntala Ramavtar Sharma …Respondent

¶9

Mr.Ramesh Jaiswal i/b Ms.Sujata Seth for the Petitioner Mr.Manoj G. Agre for the Respondents

¶10

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 13 February, 2024

¶11

P.C.

¶12

After this Petition was heard for sometime, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner and his family members are ready and willing to unconditionally vacate the subject premises and handover the possession to Respondent/Mother on or before 30^th May 2023. Statement as made on behalf of the Petitioner is accepted. The Petitioner to place on record an undertaking to this effect within a period of one week and a copy of the same be also furnished to the Advocate for the Respondents.

¶13

We keep open all the contentions of the Petitioner to assert legal rights in respect of the tenement but not during the life time of the mother, as held by this Court recent in Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.7392 of 2021 decided on 30^th January 2024, wherein the Court, in paragraph 22, observed thus:

¶14

Page 1 of 2 13 February, 2024

¶15

This order has been modified by speaking to minutes of order dated 4^th March 2024

¶16

912 WP10492-23WITHIA(1).DOC

¶17

“22. As seen from the above decisions, it is quite settled that during the life time of the parents, the children cannot assert any legal right whatsoever in respect of the property of their parents claiming exclusive ownership or possession of the parents property. The proper remedy for the petitioner would be to file a suit in the event the other brothers are also claiming any right in the premises and this cannot be during the life time of the mother.”

¶18

The Petitioner is also directed not to create any third party right whatsoever or part with possession of the said premises till 30^th May 2024.

¶19

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Interim Applications would also not survive and stand disposed of.

¶21

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)

¶22

Page 2 of 2 13 February, 2024

¶23

This order has been modified by speaking to minutes of order dated 4^th March 2024

Umesh Ravavtar Sharma v. Shankuntala Ramavtar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Ravavtar Sharma v. Shankuntala Ramavtar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshwardhan Avinash Raskar Vs the Chief Secretary Goverment of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sitaram Ramkrushna Harak and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Department of Irrigation Thr. the Executice Engineer and Ors.

Rucha Pralhad Deshmukh vs the State of Maharashtra through the Office of Govt. Pleader

Basp Chemical Products Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Umesh Ramavatar Sharma Vs Shakuntala Ramavtar Sharma

Pradip Nana Kuge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Ministry of Helath and Family and Ors.