Yogeshkumar Laxmanrao Deshpande vs Sunita Laxmanrao Deshpande
2016 Latest Caselaw 2025 Bom

                                         1                 WP/ 4151 /2016



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                           
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2016




                                                   
    Yogeshkumar S/o Laxmanrao Deshpande,
    Age : 41 yrs. Occ. Service,
    R/o "Yogkunj", Deglur Road, Ram Nagar, Udgir




                                                  
    A.P. D-103, Bharti Vihar,
    Behind Bharati Vidyapeeth,
    Katraj, Pune                                 .. Petitioner

          Vs.




                                            
    Sunita Laxmanrao Deshpande,   
    Age 43 yrs, Occ. Service,
    R/o Ramnagar, Deglur road,
    Udgir, Dist. Latur                                .. Respondent
                                 
                                      ----
    Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate for the petitioner
    Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent
                                      ----
      
   



                                        CORAM   : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                        DATE    : 28-04-2016





    ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the parties.

2. The petition has been moved purporting to challenge

concurrent orders passed by two courts, one by the trial court, upon an

application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff

granting temporary injunction restraining the present petitioner-

2 WP/ 4151 /2016

defendant from causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff

over the suit property and another by first appellate court in misc. civil

appeal. Since the appeal has failed, the writ petition has been filed by

petitioner-defendant.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a

matter of fact, the status, as claimed by the plaintiff is dubious and as

such, suit property cannot be said to have been

given/inherited/granted or owned by the respondent and the alleged

possession over the same cannot be said to be legitimate. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that certain litigations at several

stages before various authorities are going on between the parties.

4. Learned counsel Mrs. Kulkarni, appearing for the

respondent contends that the property has been given to the

respondent by her deceased husband long back and that it was she,

who was looking after the old aged husband. Their marriage had taken

place in 2007. During all the period, till his death, her deceased

husband was being looked after by the present respondent. No other

person including petitioner had turned to him and looked after while he

was ailing and alive. It is being submitted by her that there is

equitable distribution of the properties amongst the heirs left behind by

her deceased husband. Learned counsel for the respondent further

submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have prima

3 WP/ 4151 /2016

facie found the respondent to be in possession of the property and

have rightly passed the orders. These concurrent findings of facts are

not amenable to be re-opened under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, since those being not perverse.

5. I find considerable force in the submissions being advanced

on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. The request made in the writ

petition about setting aside the impugned order is not being

considered. As such, the writ petition stands rejected.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it

would suffice at this juncture if the property is not dealt with by the

respondent/plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

request now being made in the writ petition about dealing with the suit

property, cannot be considered at this stage, neither the apprehension

that is now being expressed, is supported by any material. If an

occasion arises, such a request may be made by the petitioner before

appropriate forum, which of course would be subject to be decided on

merits. She further submits that there is nothing on record to show

that the property is about to be dealt with. As such the request does

not deserve consideration.

4 WP/ 4151 /2016

8. However, since apprehension has been expressed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, and that the petitioner is getting

phone calls about the property being dealt with, in such a situation, he

may make appropriate request before the appropriate forum.

9. The observations made hereinabove in this order are made

for the purposes of rejection of the writ petition and would not have

any influence on any other proceedings or in the suit. Rule stands

discharged.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH] JUDGE

arp/