1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rpa
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 629 OF 2010
1) Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate, ]
Age - 65 years, Occu.-Housewife. ]
]
2) Shri.Deepak Ramkrishna Pate, ]
Age - 43 years, Occu.- Agricultural ]
& Business, ] .. Appellants
Both Residing at : ] (Org. Plaintiffs)
Room No. 21, Ground Floor,
ig ]
Gulam Mohammed Building, ]
Navraji Hill, Road No.7, Dongari, ]
Mumbai 400 009. ]
VERSUS
1) Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre, ]
Age - 60 years, Occu.-Housewife, ]
Residing at - Narayanwadi, ]
A. P., Narayangaon, Tal.-Junner, ]
District-Pune, Pin No. 410 504. ]
]
2) Smt. Kamal Jagannath Mule, ]
Age - 58 years, Occu.-Housewife, ]
R/at. A.P., Narayangaon, ]
Behind Grampanchayat Office, ]
Tal-Junner, District - Pune, ] .. Respondents
Pin No. 410 504. ] (Org. Defendants)
]
3) Smt. Leela Pandurang Temkar, ]
Age - 56 years, Occu.-Housewife, ]
R/at. Shivadarshan Co-Operative ]
Housing Society, 2nd Floor, ]
Bhatwadi, R.B.Kadam Marg, ]
Near Rupal Industrial Estate, ]
Ghatkopar (west), ]
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
2
Mumbai - 400 086. ]
]
4) Shri Sayaji Ganpat Pate, ]
Age - 48 years, Occu.-Agricultural, ]
R/at. Agaskand, Near Crusher ]
Machine, Pune Nasik Highway, ]
A.P., Narayangaon, Taluka-Junner, ]
District Pune- 410 504. ]
]
5) Smt. Sushila Haribhau Vite, ]
Age - 54 years, Occu.-Housewife, ]
R/at. Vite Building, Muktabai ]
Mandir Road, A.P., Narayangaon, ]
Taluka-Junner, Dist. Pune -410 504. ]
ig ]
6) Shri. Shivaji Maruti Wayal, ]
Age - 64 years, Occu.-Agricultrual, ]
R/at. Bhalgat Building, ]
Near Ram Mandir, A.P.,Narayangaon]
Tal.-Junner, District Pune - 410 504.]
....
Mr. A. V. Anturkar a/w. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh & Mr. Vipin Kasle
for the Appellants.
Mr. R. D. Soni i/b. M/s. Ram & Co. for the Respondents.
....
CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J.
RESERVED ON : JUNE 24, 2010.
PRONONUNCED ON : JULY 5, 2010.
JUDGMENT :-
This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting appellant’s
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
3
application Exhibit 5 and 37 for an injunction to restrain
respondents (defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 1813
of 2009) from obstructing appellants/plaintiffs possession of
Survey Nos. 364/1 and 364/2 at Narayangaon, Taluka Junner,
District Pune, and from creating any third party interests during
the pendency of the Suit.
2. By consent of parties the Appeal was taken up for final
hearing at the admission stage.
3. The facts which are material for deciding this Appeal
are as under :-
The properties which are subject matter of this Appeal
were undisputedly owned and possessed by Mr. Sakharam Pate.
The question whether the properties were self acquired or
ancestral properties of Sakharam Pate cannot be gone into at this
stage, since it will have to be decided after evidence is tendered.
Sakharam had three natural daughters who are respondent Nos. 1
to 3 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3). He adopted one Ramkrishna, who
was married at that time, as his son by a registered adoption deed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
4
dated 6th June, 1966. Sakharam died on 28th November, 1966.
Sakharam’s widow Rahibai died on 6th May, 2007. Thus far there
is no dispute.
4. According to the plaintiffs, soon before Sakharam’s
death on 28th November, 1966, on 10th November, 1966 Sakharam
had willed the properties to Ramkrishna. This will was registered
on 15th November, 1966. This is not admitted by defendants.
According to the defendants, the properties of Sakharam were
partitioned amongst Ramkrishna (adopted son), Rahibai (widow)
and three daughters (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) on 31st December,
1978 in presence of two witnesses and a writing to that effect was
made.
5. Ramkrishna died on 26th April, 1985 leaving behind
widow Laxmibai (plaintiff No.1), Son Deepak (plaintiff No.2) and
daughters Kalpana and Aruna (who are not parties to the
proceeding).
6. While plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession in
view of the will dated 10th November, 1966, defendants claim that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
5
parties were in possession of properties as per partition dated 31 st
December, 1978. One of the properties owned by the family, F. S.
No. 523 was subject matter of acquisition proceedings and was
released from acquisition proceedings as on application made by
plaintiff No. 2 Deepak, on his claim that in partition dated 31st
December, 1987, 7A 13G land had come to his share, 83G land
came to the share of plaintiff No.1 Laxmibai and 7A 24G each had
gone to the share of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. This documents of
partition seems to have been produced before the Additional
Commissioner as can be seen from his order dated 26th November,
2001. The order recites that F. S. No. 364/1 and 364/2, which
were in the name of Deepak (plaintiff No.2) were not included in
command area.
7. According to plaintiffs, no such application was made
by plaintiff No.2, and, respondent’s son, advocate Pradeep Muley
was in fact looking after the proceedings. Plaintiffs claims to have
approached Hon’ble Minister for Revenue against the order passed
by the Additional Commissioner, though the order is in favour of
plaintiff No.2, which application is stated to be still pending.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
6
8. Sakharam’s widow Rahibai and defendant No.2 Kamal
applied on 23rd February, 2006 to Tahsildar for mutation of suit
properties in their names on the basis of partition deed dated 31st
December, 1978. Tahsildar rejected the application on 10th
August, 2006. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 applied to S.D.O. who
allowed the Appeal on 23rd January, 2009 and directed that names
of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to be recorded. Plaintiffs filed a second
R.T.S. Appeal No. 44 of 2009 against S.D.O’s order which was
dismissed by the Collector on 24th September, 2009 and on 6th
October, 2009 names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were recorded in
revenue record. On 12th December, 2009, plaintiff challenged this
order by preferring revision before the Additional Commissioner,
who, on 16th December, 2009 restrained defendants from creating
third party interest. Plaintiffs then filed the suit on 14 th October,
2009 from which present Appeal arises. Application Exhibit 5 for
temporary injunction was filed by plaintiffs on 29th October, 2009.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 transferred the property S. No. 364/1 and
364/2 by registered sale deed to defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Plaintiffs
claim that thereafter their possession was sought to be disturbed.
The plaintiff therefore filed application Exhibit 37 for a further
injunction and also added defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as parties to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
7
suit.
9. Respondents contested the application by filing reply.
According to respondents :-
(i) The properties in question were ancestral
and not self acquired properties of Sakharam,
(and therefore could not have been willed to
Ramkrishna).
(ii) Ramkrishna was already married at the
time of alleged adoption and there is no reference
to adoptive mother Rahibai in the adoption deed
dated 6th June, 1966.
(iii) There was a partition of properties on 31st
November, 1978.
(iv) This partition was relied on by the plaintiff
for getting property S. No. 523 released from
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
8acquisition.
(v) Therefore since plaintiffs and defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 form a joint family, injunction
against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be claimed,
therefore, they prayed for dismissal of plaintiff’s
application.
10. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed the
impugned order rejecting plaintiffs application. Aggrieved thereby
plaintiffs are before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties. Though, the order may give an impression that the
learned Judge was refusing “ad-interim injunction”, the tenor of
the order shows that it was passed after hearing the parties and
thus what was refused was “interim injunction”, after considering
merits, though observation by the learned Judge is to the contrary.
11. Now, coming to the merits of the matter. The
defendants may not be able to question adoption of Ramkrishna
by Sakharam now, if they want to rely on partition deed dated 31 st
December, 1978, which acknowledges Ramkrishna as son of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
9
Sakharam. The partition dated 31st December, 1978 is however
not shown to have been acted upon or referred to by any of the
parties till 26th November, 2001, when it was referred to in the
order passed by Additional Commissioner for exclusion of land S.
No. 523 from acquisition. First applications for recording their
names in revenue record were made by defendant Nos. 1 to 3
(and even their mother Rahibai) only in 2006. Till then the
properties continued in the name of Ramkrishna and after him the
plaintiffs. Even in the applications by Rahibai on 23rd February,
2006 and by Kamal dated 27th March, 2006 to the Tahsildar,
partition deed dated 31st December, 1978 was not refereed to and
there is no claim by the sisters that their name should be mutated
in record of S. Nos. 364/1 and 364/2 which had allegedly come to
their share in the partition. The prayer was for recording their
names in revenue records of all fields. It is also not referred to in
Memo of Appeal to the S.D.O., though in his order dated 23rd
January, 2009, the partition deed is referred to. Though the initial
prayer of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was to include their names in
record of right of all fields left behind by Sakharam, the S.D.O. in
appeal ordered exclusion of five fields from mutation entry 19623
and 23893 and record them in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
10
While doing so, the S.D.O. too observed that plaintiffs had relied
on partition deed dated 31st December, 1978 for exclusion of their
land from acquisition.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out
that appellants had not referred to any partition deed dated 31st
December, 1978 in their application for exclusion of land S. No.
523 from acquisition. Reason for seeking exclusion was not
partition between plaintiffs on one side and defendant Nos. 1 to 3
on the other. Partition referred to in application dated 11 th
January, 2000 was between plaintiffs interse. The applicants have
already approached the Revenue Minister against observations
about partition dated 31st December, 1978 in Commissioner’s
order dated 26th November, 2001.
13. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that
after having been benefited by the said order passed on account of
partition, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to turn around.
14. The only reason that seems to have prevailed upon the
learned trial Judge in relying to the partition is the impression
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
11
gathered by him that the appellants took advantage of the said
partition in order to get the land, Survey No. 523, released
from acquisition. A look at the order passed by the Commissioner
would show that the reason for exclusion of Survey Nos. 364/1
and 364/2 from the holding of the appellants was not that they
had gone to the respondents in partition, but that they were not in
the command area. The learned judge should have also seen that
in the application made before the Commissioner, the appellants
had not set up the case that their lands were liable to be excluded
because of reduction in their holding on account of partition.
He should have seen that it was probable that the appellant’s
cousin, who was an advocate and who is son of one of the
respondent’s and who was looking after the litigation, could have
raised the partition theory in the order of the Commissioner.
Thus, the case of the appellants that the appellants were in
possession of the property could have been accepted by the
learned trial Judge. He should have seen that the alleged partition
of the year 1978 did not at all surface for at least 22 years. There
is nothing on record to show that the respondents had, at any
point of time, sought entry of their names in the record of the
property, on the basis of partition.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
12
15. In view of this, the learned Judge should have seen
that the appellant’s claim of the possession of the fields in question
was at least, prima facie, indefeasible. In the light of the
foregoing, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge correctly
concluded that the appellants had not made out a prima facie case.
In view of this, he ought to have restrained the respondents from
disturbing the appellant’s possession in respect of fields, survey
Nos. 364/1 and 364/2.
16. As far as creating third party interest is concerned,
provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are
sufficient to take care of apprehension of the appellants. The
appellants have not shown as to why, in addition to the statutory
protection afforded by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
the appellants need a further injunction from the Civil Court to
restrain the respondents from creating any further interest in the
property. Appellants could, if they so desire, register the lis so as
to put third parties, to the notice that the property is the subject
matter of a dispute before a Civil Court. It has to be noted that a
Civil Court should ordinarily not put any restrictions on enjoyment
of property by any one till the lis is finally decided or during the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::
13
pendency of the lis, unless it is shown that the litigation could be
rendered infructuous, if a preventive order is not passed.
17. In view of this, the Appeal is partly allowed, the
impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are restrained
from disturbing the appellant’s possession over the fields, survey
No. 364/1 and 364/2, till the disposal of the suit.
[ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:06:03 :::