Dismissed¶34

Kathod Kalu Ware and Anr. v. Yogesh Waman Thakare and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/9321/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction refused; co-owner; community of interest and unity of possession; sale of specific portion by co-owner; oral partition; Vatap Patra; prima facie case; joint possession; no prayer for partition; supervisory jurisdiction; Special Civil Suit No. 180 of 2020; Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2022; Civil Judge Kalyan; District Judge Kalyan; survey No. 143/12; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court.

What did the court decide?

Among co-owners there is community of interest and unity of possession, and no co-owner is entitled to sell a specific portion of the property in contradistinction to his undivided interest therein; the Courts below correctly noted this position in law. ¶28

Kathod Kalu Ware and Anr. vs Yogesh Waman Thakare and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs made out a case for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from creating third party interest in the suit property. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

In the facts of the case, the Courts below found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of the oral partition in the year 2010 and there was no material to show that the plaintiffs were in joint possession with defendant Nos. 5 and 6; the plaintiffs had themselves sold portions of the suit land to defendant Nos. 53 and 54 by executing instruments to which defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were not parties, while at one breath claiming a prior partition and at another seeking partition on the premise that the suit property was still joint.

¶28

Key takeaways

The fact that the plaintiffs have not prayed for partition assumes significance; the exercise of discretion by the Courts below in not granting injunction does not suffer from such infirmity as to warrant interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.; Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2024, decided 21 January 2025) dismissed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2024 of the learned District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2022, which had upheld the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan's rejection (order dated 9th February, 2022) of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 180 of 2020 restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from creating third party interest in land bearing survey No. 143/12. The Court affirmed the position that among co-owners there is community of interest and unity of possession and no co-owner is entitled to sell a specific portion of the property in contradistinction to his undivided interest therein. However, the Courts below had found no prima facie case of the alleged oral partition recorded in the 'Vatap Patra' of 22nd March, 2010, nor material showing joint possession; the plaintiffs had themselves sold portions of the suit land to defendant Nos. 53 and 54 by instruments to which defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were not parties, while inconsistently claiming a prior partition and simultaneously seeking partition on the premise that the property was still joint. The absence of a prayer for partition in the suit was held to assume significance; the discretion exercised by the Courts below in refusing injunction was free from such infirmity as to warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction.

¶1

35-wp-9321-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9321 OF 2024

¶4

Kathod Kalu Ware and Another ...Petitioners

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2025.01.31 16:38:08 +0530

¶7

vs.

¶8

Yogesh Waman Thakare and Others ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sagar Talekar, for the Petitioners

¶10

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. Rohit Parab, Mr. Nikhil M. i/b. Mr. Prasanna Sahane, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶11

Mr. Jeet Gandhi a/w. Mr. Rahul Arora and Mr. Pinakin Modi, for Respondent nos. 53 and 54.

¶12

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2025

¶13

P.C:

¶14

This petition calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 5^th February, 2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/ plaintiffs against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan rejecting application for temporary injunction, preferred by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 180 of 2020, came to be dismissed.

¶15

A suit was instituted with the assertion that the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs acquired land bearing survey No. 143/12, more particularly described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, under a registered Sale Deed dated 26^th June, 1953. Out of the said land, some portion was sold by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 to 52 to

...1

Vishal Parekar, PS

35-wp-9321-2024.doc

defendant No. 54 under a Sale Deed dated 10^th November, 2010. Likewise, another portion was sold to defendant No. 53. An area admeasuring 1H 15R remained with the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 to 52 as a joint property. The said area of land (the suit property) is under the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 to 52.

¶20

An oral partition was effected and the memorandum of partition titled ‘Vatap Patra’ was prepared on 22^nd March, 2010 whereunder an area admeasuring 40 guntha was allotted to the plaintiffs. Yet the defendant Nos. 5 and 6, without the consent of the co-sharers, sold 80 R to the defendant No. 4, under a registered Sale Deed dated 3^rd October, 2019. Hence, the suit for a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is illegal and void.

¶21

The plaintiffs also sought temporary injunction to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from creating third party interest in the suit property. By an order dated 9^th February, 2022 the learned Civil Judge rejected the application for temporary injunction. The learned District Judge did not find any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court.

¶22

Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the Courts below have committed an error in non-suiting the

...2

Vishal Parekar, PS

35-wp-9321-2024.doc

plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have not instituted the suit for partition. The defendant Nos. 5 and 6, being the co-owners, could not have sold a definite portion of the suit property. Partition by metes and bounds had not taken place. It was, therefore, imperative to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from creating third party interest in the suit property.

¶27

The submissions of Mr. Talekar do not merit acceptance.

¶28

The Courts below have correctly noted the position in law that among the co-owners, there is community of interest and unity of possession. No co-owner is entitled to sell a specific portion of the property in contradistinction to his undivided interest therein. However, in the facts of the case, the Courts below have found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of the oral partition in the year 2010. Nor there was material to show that the plaintiffs were in joint possession with the defendant Nos. 5 and 6. On the contrary, the plaintiffs had sold portions of the suit land in favour of the defendant Nos. 53 and 54 by executing instruments to which defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were not the parties. At one breath the plaintiffs were claiming that there was a prior partition and at another breath the plaintiffs were seeking partition on the premise that the suit property was still joint.

¶29

The fact that the plaintiffs have not prayed for partition

...3

Vishal Parekar, PS

35-wp-9321-2024.doc

assumes significance in the aforesaid context. Thus, the exercise of discretion by the Courts below not to grant injunction cannot be said to suffer from such infirmity as to warrant interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court.

¶34

The petition thus stands dismissed.

¶35

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶36

...4

¶37

Vishal Parekar, PS

Kathod Kalu Ware and Anr. v. Yogesh Waman Thakare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathod Kalu Ware and Anr. v. Yogesh Waman Thakare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok Bhaskar Shetty (Pet. NO.1 and 2) vs Milind Jaykumar Kole

Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok Bhaskar Shetty (Pet. NO.1 and 2) vs Milind Jaykumar Kole

Smt. Aisha Abdul Rehman Laloo and Ors. vs Shri Ishaque Mohammed Laloo (Decd) through Lrs and Ors.

Srishti Chetty Daughter of Sriram Chetty vs Sriram Chetty Son of Venkat Rathnam Ampabattuni (Deceased no. 1)

Baban Vithoba Bhidave vs M/S. Tara Construction Thr Prop. Balkrishna Ambaji Nanekar and Ors.

Sarubai Suhas Kamble vs Suhas shrikant kamble (Deceased)