Kusum Charudatta Shriyan and Ors. vs Prabhas Arun Siddha and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kusum Charudatta Shriyan and Ors. vs Prabhas Arun Siddha and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application allowed: the interim order dated 08/11/2011 passed by this Court shall continue to operate between the parties during pendency of the appeal; Interim Application disposed of in above terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 08/11/2011 passed by this Court, which was operating between the parties during pendency of the suit, should continue to operate during pendency of First Appeal No. 181 of 2025.

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the controversy, the relationship between the parties, the findings of the Trial Court and the interim order existing between the parties in the Trial Court, the interim order dated 08/11/2011 passed by this Court shall continue to operate between the parties during pendency of the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The Interim Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application — continuance of interim injunction during pendency of appeal. Applicants/original Plaintiffs in Suit No. 3191 of 2006 (suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the suit property) sought continuance, during pendency of First Appeal No. 181 of 2025, of the interim protection operating in their favour: an interim injunction restraining the Respondents/original Defendants from transferring or assigning any right in the suit property and from obstructing/disturbing the Applicants' possession, ordered on 12/12/2006 in Notice of Motion No. 3888 of 2006 in Suit No. 3191 of 2006 and confirmed on 08/11/2011. The Defendants claimed exclusive ownership under a will of the common ancestor Anandibai; the Plaintiffs claimed through original Plaintiff Charudatta as surviving lessee; the underlying dispute concerned leasehold rights granted by the Municipal Corporation, and the Trial Court had held on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 that Smt. Anandibai was neither entitled to dispose of the suit property by Will nor absolute owner thereof. Held, allowing the application: considering the nature of the controversy, the relationship between the parties, the findings of the Trial Court and the existing interim order, the interim order dated 08/11/2011 shall continue to operate during pendency of the appeal. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

23.IA.788.2025.doc

Digitally signed by ANANT ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIK NAIK Date: 2025.12.02 13:56:57 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.788 OF 2025 IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.181 OF 2025

Kusum Charudatta Shriyan & Ors. ….Applicants/Appellants. V/s.

Prabhab Arun Siddha & Anr. …. Respondents

Mr. Sanjay Kadam a/w Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar i/b Kadam & Company, for the Applicants/Appellants.

Mr. Vasantkumar Takke for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Asutosh Shukla for Respondent No.2.

****

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

DATED : 1^st DECEMBER 2025

P.C.:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Applicants are Original Plaintiff and the Respondents are Original Defendants. The suit was filed seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

The case of the Respondents/Defendants is based on a will executed by the common ancester – Anandibai . The case of the Defendants is of exclusive ownership under the said will. The Applicants/Plaintiffs are claiming through the Original Plaintiff-Chrudatta, who claims right to the suit property as a surviving lessee.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants invited this Court’s attention to Issue nos. 1 and 2, under which the Trial Court has held that Smt. Anandibai

1/2

akn

23.IA.788.2025.doc

was not entitled to dispose of the suit property by Will and that she was also not absolute owner of the suit property. He submits that during the pendency of the suit, the interim injunction was operating in favour of the Applicants restraining the Respondents from transferring or assigning any right in the suit property and further restraining them from obstructing and/or disturbing the Applicants’ possession. The order dated 12/12/2006 passed by this Court in the Notice of Motion No. 3888 of 2006 in Suit No. 3191 of 2006, confirmed on 08/11/2011 is relied upon.

In essence, there is dispute between the parties about leasehold rights granted by the Municipal Corporation. The Appeal is admitted and Cross Objections are directed to be heard alongwith the Appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the controversy, relationship between the parties and findings of the Trial Court and further considering the interim order existing between parties in the Trial Court, this Application is allowed by directing that the interim order dated 08/11/2011 passed by this Court which was operating between the parties during the pendency of the suit, shall continue to operate during pendency of the appeal.

The Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

2/2

akn