Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo S/O. Pandurang Bawankule vs Vasant S/O. Eknath Bawankule And ... on 7 December, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp2026.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2026 OF 2016
Sukhdeo Pandurang Bawankule,
aged about 42 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Shastrti Chowk, Dhamangaon Railway,
Taluka Dhamangaon, Distt. Amravati ...... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1.
Vasant Eknath Bawankule,
aged about 54 years,
Occ. Agriculturist.
2. Prakash Eknath Bawankule,
aged about 50 years,
Occ. Agriculturist.
3. Ashok Eknath Bawankule,
aged about 49 years,
Occ. Agriculturist.
4. Kishor Eknath Bawankule,
aged about 47 years,
Occ. Agriculturist.
5. Kul Mangala Eknath Bawankule,
aged about 32 years,
Occ. Agriculturist.
6. Smt. Sheela Dnyaneshwar Supare,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
All R/o. Hirapur, Dhamangaon Railway,
Taluka Dhamangaon, Distt. Amravati.
7. Smt. Baby Sitaram Chandankhede,
aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
R/o. Kinhi, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:48:24 :::
2 wp2026.16.odt
8. Mrs. Ratna Ashok Bhure,
aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
R/o. Sindi Colony, New Basti,
Badnera, Distt. Amravati. RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A.Choube, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri Alok Daga, counsel for Respondent nos. 1 to 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 7 DECEMBER, 2016 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard the matter finally by consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
2] In a suit simplicitor 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
3 wp2026.16.odt
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.
The parties to appear before the lower appellate
Court on 19.12.2016.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
