Petitioners sought injunction to protect exclusive possession of agricultural land allegedly orally partitioned decades ago. Courts below rejected it, noting the memorandum of partition lacked all co-sharers' signatures. The High Court found no perversity, kept trial findings open, and disposed of the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2-wp7042--2024.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESHJADHAVDate: 2024.06.2110:05:48 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.7042 OF 2024
Raghunath Bhagwan Dalavi & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Balkrishna Vishnu Dalavi & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe with Mr. Mayank Tripathi for the petitioners.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 20, 2024
P.C.:
1
2-wp7042--2024.doc
sharers. The Courts below have also rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that the alleged oral partition was effected prior to 40 to 50 years.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Courts below erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application based on a memorandum of partition not signed by all co-sharers and affidavits of adjoining owners.
Raghunath Bhagwan Dalavi
Balkrishna Vishnu Dalavi
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
