Sadhana Rajiv Patil vs Ganpat Kusha Naik and Others Ganpat Kusha Naik Vs Sadhana Rajiv Patil and Others

R.G. Ketkar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

First Appeal No. 853 of 2010 is preferred by the original defendant No. 1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai in Special Civil Suit No. 348 of 2007.

First Appeal No. 920 of 2010 was not on board. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up on board as the said appeal also challenges the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge on 9th June, 2010 in Special Civil Suit No. 348 of 2007.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to decide the appeals finally at the stage of admission itself. Issue notice in both the appeals, returnable on 29th July, 2010. Notice to indicate that the court may endeavour to decide the appeals finally at the stage of admission itself. Humdast allowed. Mr. P.B. Shah waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 853 of 2010. Mr. A.G. Damle waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 920 of 2010.

Call for Record and Proceedings of the case. Parties are at liberty to file additional compilation of the relevant documents before the next date of hearing.

Heard Mr. A.G. Damle, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.B. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

By this application, the applicant original defendant No. 1 seeks stay to the execution and operation of the judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 348 of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai. By that judgment, the learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit instituted by the respondent No. 1 and declared that the sale deed dated 17th December, 2004 executed by the respondent No. 13 as a Power of Attorney holder of Respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in favour of the applicant, is null and void. The learned trial judge further restrained the applicant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 from dispossessing the respondent No. 1 herein, from the suit property without following the due process of law. While partly decreeing the suit, the learned trial Judge recorded that the revenue record indicates that the first respondent is in possession of the suit property. It is in these circumstance, I am not inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the application.

It is, therefore, directed that the operative Clause (1) of the impugned judgment and decree to the extent that the sale deed dated 17th December, 2004 executed by the respondent No. 13 in favour of the applicant herein is null and void, shall stand stayed until further orders, subject to the condition that the applicant herein shall not create any third party rights in respect of the property in dispute. It is expressly made clear that the respondent No. 1 shall not be dispossessed from the suit property until further orders.

Stand over to 29th July, 2010.