Dismissed

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

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024SA/588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a second appeal where parties reached an agreement. The appellant accepted the Trust's title to the suit property and the Trust admitted the appellant's right to act as Mujawar/Occupier, subject to existing restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was disposed of without interference in the impugned decrees; the appellant is to continue occupation as Mujawar subject to trust rules. Interim applications disposed of.

Smt. Ashamma Jalaluddin Ghori Vs Hajrat Ladleshaha Peer… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

908 sa 588.20 n ia as.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.588 OF 2020
WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.942 OF 2023
IN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO.588 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2021
IN

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO.588 OF 2020

¶8

Ashamma Jalaluddin Ghori
V/S

¶9

....Appellant/Applicant

¶10

Hajrat Ladleshaha Peer Saheb
Dargah & Ors. ....Respondents

¶11

Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w Mr. Dheeraj D. Patil for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. T.S. Ingalefor Respondent Nos.1 to 13.

¶12

Mr. Umesh Pawar for the Respondent Nos.14/1, 14/2, 14/4, 14/6 and 14/7.

¶13

Ms. Ashamma Jalaluddin Ghori – Applicant/Appellant - in person present in
Court.

¶14

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

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1 By present Appeal, Appellant is challenging decree dated 17 September 2019 passed by District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2010. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant and has confirmed the decree dated 25 November 2009 passed by katkam Page No. 1 of 4 20 March 2024

¶17

¶18

908 sa 588.20 n ia as.doc

¶19

the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No.178
of 2008.

¶20

2Plaintiffs had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.178 of 2008 seeking a
declaration that decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 1999 on 25
November 2003 is not binding on Plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and
seeking injunction against Defendants from executing the said decree. The
decree in Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 1999 was passed in a partition suit filed
between the Appellant and her brother in which partition was directed to be
effected in respect of properties including the suit property between the
Appellant and her brother. The Plaintiffs-Trust filed Regular Civil Suit No.178
of 2008 seeking a declaration that the decree of partition between Appellant
and her brother is not binding on the Trust as the suit property is owned by
the Trust. Plaintiffs-Trust also raised a plea in its suit that a female cannot be
permitted to act in capacity as a Mujawar/Occupier for rendering services to
Dargah and only male members of a family are entitled to do so. The Trial
Court proceeded to hold that the suit property is the Trust property and that
therefore the decree passed in the partition suit between Appellant and her
brother was not binding on the Trust. The Trial Court however negatived the
plea raised by the Plaintiffs-Trust about incapacity of female member to
render services to Dargah as Mujawar/Occupier. The First Appellate Court
has confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶21

Page No. 2 of 4 20 March 2024

¶22

katkam

¶23

908 sa 588.20 n ia as.doc

¶24

¶25

3I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
and Mr. Ingale, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Original
Plaintiffs.

¶26

4After arguing the Appeal extensively Mr. Patil, after taking instructions
from his client, would submit that the Appellant does not desire to question
the title of Trust to the suit property. He would however submit that
Appellant’s right to act as Mujawar/Occupier in respect of the suit property
cannot be questioned. He would submit that Appellant’s right to act as
Mujawar/Occupier is questioned by the Trust only on account of the fact that
she is not a male member. Mr. Ingale after taking instructions from his clients
would fairly submit that the Plaintiffs-Trust does not have any objection for
the Appellant to continue to act as Mujawar/Occupier in respect of the suit
property by admitting the title of the Trust to the suit property. Mr. Ingale
would submit that the name of the Appellant in fact continues to be reflected
on the 7/12 extract. Mr. Patil is quick enough to respond that reflection of the
name of the Appellant on the 7/12 extract is in ‘other rights’ column.
Mr. Ingale would submit that it is for the Appellant to move necessary
proceedings for mutation of her name in occupier’s column in the 7/12
extract.

¶27

5 Thus there appears to be agreement between the parties. Appellant is not disputing the fact that the suit property is Trust property and that the Trust is the owner thereof. The Trust on the other hand is willing to accept katkam Page No. 3 of 4 20 March 2024

¶28

908 sa 588.20 n ia as.doc
k 4/4

¶29

right of the Appellant to continue as Mujawar/Occupier in respect of the suit
property by admitting the title of the Plaintiffs-Trust. In that view of the
matter, though no interference is warranted in the impugned decrees passed
by the Trial and the First Appellate Court. It is clarified that the Appellant
shall continue to be in occupation of the suit property in her capacity as
Mujawar/Occupier by admitting title of the Plaintiffs-Trust in respect of the
suit property. If and when the Plaintiffs-Trust desires to evict any
Mujawar/Occupier in respect of Trust properties, including the Appellant,
the Trust would be entitled to adopt necessary proceedings in that regard. All
questions and rights of parties in that regard are kept open. With the above
observations, the Second Appeal is disposed of.

¶30

6Needless to say that all the restrictions applicable to a
Mujawar/Occupier for occupation of the Trust property, including restriction
on transfer/alienation/parting with possession, shall continue to apply against
the Appellant and Respondent No.14.

¶31

7With disposal of the Second Appeal, Interim Applications taken out by
the Applicants do not survive and the same stands accordingly disposed of.

¶32

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2024.03.22 10:21:42 +0530

¶34

Page No. 4 of 4 20 March 2024

¶35

katkam

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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