Dismissed¶31

Rahul Nanaso Mahadik and Ors. v. Ashok Jayshing Shinde and Ors.

Interim injunction – suit for perpetual injunction

Bombay HC6 May 2025WP/9635/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No.9635 of 2024; N.J. Jamadar, J.; interim injunction; suit for perpetual injunction; prima facie possession and cultivation; supervisory jurisdiction; non-interference with discretionary interlocutory orders; tenancy; Tiller's day; Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948; Agricultural Land Tribunal; reference to Tribunal; Mutation Entry No.11436; Mutation Entry No.11687; Gat No.479/1; sale deed by Defendant Nos.7 to 17; Civil Appeal No.270 of 2022; RCS No.212 of 2022; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the Petitioners; the interim injunction orders passed by the Courts below stand, the Writ Petition having been dismissed. ¶31

Rahul Nanaso Mahadik and Ors. vs Ashok Jayshing Shinde and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the Petitioners; the interim injunction orders passed by the Courts below stand, the Writ Petition having been dismissed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in writ/supervisory jurisdiction, should interfere with the concurrent discretionary orders of the Courts below granting interim injunction in the suit for perpetual injunction, founded on the Plaintiffs' prima facie possession and cultivation of the suit land. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, it is not open to this Court to interfere with prima facie findings as to possession recorded by the Courts below.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The record of rights of the suit land consistently shows that the names of the Plaintiffs and their predecessor in title were mutated to the cultivators column of the suit land, supporting the Courts below's prima facie finding of possession and cultivation.

¶25

Key takeaways

The jurisdictional question raised by the Petitioners before the Trial Court is left to the Civil Court: if it comes to the conclusion that questions required to be determined by the Tribunal arise in the suit, it would be required to pass appropriate orders for reference of the dispute to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.obiter¶29
There is no justifiable reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Courts below; the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim injunction — suit for perpetual injunction — Plaintiffs-Respondents claiming to be successors in interest of Tai Santu Shinde (tenant since 1933), with their names mutated to the cultivators column of the suit land, alleged that Defendant Nos.7 to 17, taking undue advantage of mutation of their names, executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 6 (Petitioners), who then obstructed the Plaintiffs' possession and cultivation — Civil Judge (RCS No.212 of 2022, order dated 8 December 2022) restrained Defendant Nos.1 to 6 from causing obstruction to the Plaintiffs' possession and from changing the nature of the suit property till final disposal of the suit — appeal dismissed by the District Judge (Civil Appeal No.270 of 2022, judgment and order dated 13 March 2024) — Held, dismissing the Writ Petition: in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction it is not open to the High Court to interfere with prima facie findings as to possession; the record of rights consistently showed the names of the Plaintiffs and their predecessor mutated to the cultivators column; no justifiable reason to interfere with the discretionary order of the Courts below — Contention that the question of tenancy on the Tiller's day is exclusively triable by the Tribunal under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, with Civil Court's jurisdiction barred, and the subsequent Tribunal order dated 3 April 2025 declaring the Plaintiffs not tenants of Gat No.479/1 (Mutation Entry No.11687), left to be dealt with by the Civil Court, which would be required to refer the dispute to the Agricultural Land Tribunal if it concludes that such questions arise for determination in the suit.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:21702

¶2

907 wp 9635 of 2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9635 OF 2024

¶4

Rahul Nanaso Mahadik and Ors.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Ashok Jayshing Shinde and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Mr. Darshan i/by Mr. Kishor Ajetrao, for Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 6 MAY 2025

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 13 March 2024 passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No.270 of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed affirming the order dated 8 December 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge in RCS No.212 of 2022, thereby restraining the Petitioners – Defendant Nos.1 to 6 from causing obstruction to the possession of the Plaintiffs in the suit property and from changing the nature of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.

¶14

The Plaintiffs-Respondents claimed to be successors in interest of Tai Santu Shinde, who was a tenant of the suit land since 1933. After the demise of Tai Shinde, the name of Parubai came to be mutated as a tenant of the suit land vide Mutation Entry No.11436. Since then the predecessor in title of the

¶15

SSP 1/4

¶16

907 wp 9635 of 2024.doc

¶17

Plaintiffs and the Petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of the suit land. Defendant Nos.7 to 17, by taking the undue advantage of the mutation of their names to the holder’s column of the suit property, executed a Sale Deed in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 6 – Petitioners herein. On the strength of the said instrument, Defendant Nos.1 to 6 started to cause obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the suit land by the Plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain Defendants from causing obstruction to the possession, enjoyment, cultivation of the Plaintiff over the suit land and qua Defendant Nos.1 to 6 from also changing the nature of the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.

¶18

Learned Civil Judge was persuaded to allow the application observing, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing prima facie possession and cultivation over the suit land.

¶19

Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an appeal. By the impugned order, the appeal came to be dismissed opining that there was no reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court.

¶20

Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the entire case of the Plaintiffs was based on the tenancy of the predecessor in title of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. There is a mutation entry No.11687 dated 30 March 1957, which indicates that the name of Parubai was deleted from the cultivator’s column of the suit land. At any rate,

¶21

SSP 2/4

¶22

907 wp 9635 of 2024.doc

¶23

the question as to whether the predecessor in title of the Plaintiffs was the tenant of the suit land on the Tiller’s day can only be decided by the Tribunal under the Maharashtra Tenancy and and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred.

¶24

Moreover, after the passing of the impugned order, by an order dated 3 April 2025, the Agricultural Land Tribunal has allowed the application preferred by the Petitioners and declared that the Plaintiffs are not the tenants of the suit land bearing Gat No.479/1 vide Mutation Entry No.11687. In these circumstances, the Courts below have committed an error in granting the injunction.

¶25

I have perused the material on record. The Courts below have proceeded on the premise that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that they are prima facie in possession and cultivation of the suit land. The record of rights of the suit land consistently shows that the names of the Plaintiffs and their predecessor in title were mutated to the cultivators column of the suit land.

¶26

In these circumstances, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, it is not open for this Court to interfere with prima facie findings as to possession. The question as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit has already been raised by the Petitioners before the Trial Court and, in that event, the Civil Court would be required to pass appropriate

¶27

SSP 3/4

¶28

907 wp 9635 of 2024.doc

¶29

orders for Reference of the dispute to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for determination, if it comes to the conclusion that the questions which are required to be determined by the Tribunal arise for determination in the suit.

¶30

Thus, the Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Courts below.

¶31

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶32

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶33

SSP 4/4

¶34

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/05/2025 19:59:06

Rahul Nanaso Mahadik and Ors. v. Ashok Jayshing Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Nanaso Mahadik and Ors. v. Ashok Jayshing Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Annapurna Dagadu Sherkhane and Ors. vs Ratnamala Bhagwandas Waghmar @ Gauribai Dagadu Sherkhane (Dec.) Thr. Usha Prashant Kore

Union of India vs the Liquidator

Biyani Alloys Private Limited through the Hands of Its Director Mr Samir Prabhakar Khanwalkar vs Gnat Foundry Pvt. Limited through Mr Sanjay Vitthal Jamdar

Rita Panjaj Raval and Ors. vs Suhasini Alais Shaluja Bhatia and Ors.

Rashidkhan Babasaheb Jamadar vs Dilip Tavnappa Kemble

Kalgaonda Dhulgonda Patil vs the Collector, Kolhapur