AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 28.07.2025 passed by District Court, Satara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.100/2024, thereby upholding judgment and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.178/2023, by which petitioners are restrained from causing obstruction to possession of respondents over suit property.
In short factual aspects relevant for consideration of dispute in present Writ Petition can be stated as under:
The dispute pertains to land Gut No.405/4 admeasuring 25R situated at Karanje Tarf Satara, Taluka and District Satara. The respondents instituted Regular Civil Suit No.178/2023 seeking relief of declaration and perpetual injunction against petitioners contending that Shri. Sampat Jadhav was owner of suit property. He converted suit land for non-agriculture use under order of District Collector 30.05.1985. Mr. Sampat Jadhav and his family members transferred suit land under registered sale deed dated 06.02.1986 in favour of Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar. Later on, Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar transferred suit land under different sale deeds to Gangadhar Ingawale, Raghunath Ingawale, Manoj Ingawale, Shekhar Ingawale, Ajay Ingawale, Anantlal Palange and Nandkumar Gaikwad vide registered sale deed dated 25.10.1999.
The Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990 was filed by petitioners for partition and separate possession amongst members of Jadhav family, in which suit property was included. Pertinently, sale deed of 1986 executed in favour of Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar or subsequent sale deeds were not even referred or purchasers were not made parties in suit. Eventually, suit was decreed and decree was put to execution in Regular Darkhast No.235/1995. In pursuance to aforesaid execution proceeding, partition has been given effect vide Mutation Entry No.46215 dated 13.03.2023. In this backdrop, suit is filed by respondents/purchasers seeking declaration that decree in Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990 is not binding on them. They filed application seeking temporary injunction pending suit. The Trial Court allowed application. Aggrieved defendants filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.100/2024, which came to be dismissed on 28.07.2025. Hence, present Writ Petition.
Mr. Kulkarni learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners have been put into possession in pursuance to partition decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990. The mutation entries in pursuance to execution of decree have been recorded. The panchnama regarding delivery of possession clearly shows that, petitioners are in lawful possession over suit property.
Per contra, Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, learned Advocate appearing for respondents submits that in year 1995 land was converted for non-agricultural use. Thereafter, on 06.02.1986 it was transferred by Shri Sampat Jadhav to Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar. In deference to sale deed, Mutation Entry No.9290 was recorded prior to institution of Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990 in name of Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar. In absence of challenge to aforesaid sale deed or without adding purchasers as party, Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990 was instituted showing suit property to be owned by joint family. The decree has been obtained behind back of purchasers. The mutation entry is taken in deference to execution and possession is sought to be disturbed. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all aforesaid aspects and rightly granted injunction, which has been confirmed by Appellate Court.
Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that respondents/plaintiffs are claiming their title on the basis of registered sale deeds. Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar had purchased suit property under registered sale deed of 1986. He was put into possession of property. The Mutation Entry No.9290 was recorded in his name. Thereafter, Shri. Kanhiyalal Navandhar transferred parts of suit property in name of various persons under registered sale deeds. The Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990 shows that aforesaid transactions were not brought on record. The sale deed of 1986 was not made subject matter of challenge in suit. Apparently, suit property was not available for partition in suit as long as validity of sale deed of 1986 is challenged. On the date of institution of suit, property was not owned by family of petitioners nor they were in possession.
The mutation record consistently shows that plaintiffs were put into possession of suit property in pursuance to sale deed executed in their favour. The respondents/defendants merely relied upon Mutation Entry No.46215 effected pursuance to execution of decree in Regular Civil Suit No.675/1990. In that view of matter, it is difficult to believe that defendants were actually put into possession of suit property after removing plaintiffs, who were in lawful possession of suit property. The Trial Court has rightly considered aforesaid factual and legal position and granted relief of temporary injunction in their favour, which is confirmed by Appellate Court.
In that view of matter, no jurisdictional error is shown in impugned orders. Hence, no case is made out to cause interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
In result, Writ Petition Stands dismissed.
Rule stands discharged.