High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 12 BOM CK 0126

Sukhdeo Pandurang Bawankule vs Vasant Eknath Bawankule

Bombay High Court · Decided on 7 December 2016 · Citation: (2017) 1 ALLMR 555

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Deshpande, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2026 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 242 words

R.K. Deshpande, J.(Oral)—Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2.

In a suit simpliciter for grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, the trial Court rejected the application for grant of injunction, whereas the lower appellate Court has allowed it. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court.

3.

It seems that the property is a joint family property. There is no finding recorded by the Courts below on the question of possession. The appellate Court has also failed to record the finding as to whether the plaintiffs are in possession or the defendant. The partition deed, if any, has not been considered containing recital about the possession of the property. In view of this, the order impugned suffers from non application of mind to the relevant aspect of the matter. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained and the matter will have to be sent back to the lower appellate Court to decide it afresh.

4.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the lower appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Amravati, for recording specific finding on the aspect of physical possession.

5.

The parties to appear before the lower appellate