Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt Manibai Ganpat Sutar And ... vs Krishna Ganpat Sutar And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3694 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3694 Bom
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Smt Manibai Ganpat Sutar And ... vs Krishna Ganpat Sutar And Others on 28 June, 2017
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
                                                903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.61 OF 2014
                                      WITH 
                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2014
                                        IN
                        APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.61 OF 2014

Smt. Manibai Ganpat Sutar & Ors.                           ...Appellants
                       Versus 
Krishna Ganpat Sutar and Ors.                            ...Respondents
                                  .....
Mr. K.S. Dewal with Mr. J.M. Joshi i/b. Mr. Roshan Tanna for the 
Appellants.
Mr. Prasad Dani, senior counsel with Mr. Amol Mhatre for the 
Respondents.

                                    CORAM :    SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. 
                                    DATED  :  28th JUNE, 2017.


JUDGMENT:

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made

returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing and final

disposal.

2. The Appellants herein have challenged the order dated 30th

December, 2013 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Thane has dismissed the application for injunction filed in Special Civil

Suit No.423 of 2008.

Megha 1/6

903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

3. I have perused the pleadings of the respective parties and

considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the

respective parties.

4. The Appellant No.1 is the widow and the Appellant Nos.2

to 9 are children of Ganpat Sutar. The Respondent No.2 is the first

wife and the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the children of Ganpat

Sutar from the first marriage. The dispute in the present case is in

respect of the properties bearing survey No.136, Hissa Nos. 2 and 9

situated at village Khairne, and the property bearing Gut No.263(P), at

village -Turbhe and Survey No.6, Hissa No.8 at Village Vashi, which

were originally owned by said Ganpat Sutar. Ganpat Sutar had formed

a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Sutar and

Company with Appellant Nos.2, 8 and the Respondent No.1 as its

partners. After the death of Ganpat Sutar the partnership was

reconstituted and his widow Manibai Sutar was added as a partner of

the firm. Subsequently, the Appellant No.3-Shamkant Ganpat Sutar,

Appellant No.3, Ramakant and Shashikant were also admitted as

partners in the said Firm.

Megha 2/6

903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

5. The grievance of the Appellants was that the Respondent

No.1, who had assumed the position of Karta, had indulged in several

illegal activities such as withdrawal and transfer of funds from the

accounts of partnership firm, purchase of property in his name and on

the name of his wife and children and siphoning money of the

partnership firm by forging signatures of partners, misappropriation of

partnership funds, etc. The Appellants apprehended that the

Respondent No.1 was intending to transfer the property bearing Plot

No.7A, Sector 9 situated at Vashi, Navi Mumbai in his personal name.

The Appellants therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No.712 of 2007 for

declaration, accounts and injunction in respect of the said property.

The said suit is admittedly referred to the Arbitration and the same is

pending.

6. The Appellants have claimed that subject matter of the

present suit is the joint family properties of the Appellants and the

Respondents and that they have entitled share therein. The Appellants

have therefore called upon the Respondents to render true and correct

accounts of M/s. Sutar and Co. and also demanded partition by metes

and bounds of the immovable properties. The Respondents did not

concede to the request and the same necessitated filing of the Special

Megha 3/6

903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

Civil Suit No.423 of 2008. The Appellants claim that the Respondents

have been misappropriating the funds and have used the property for

their personal gain, whereas the Respondents have claimed that the

Appellants have not disclosed several properties and other immovable

assets held by them. It is contended that the Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 8

are residing separately since 1993 and the Respondent No.1 had

purchased several properties by obtaining loan from the Bank as well

as financial institutions. The said properties are self acquired properties

and cannot be treated as Joint Hindu Family properties. It is further

stated that some time in the year 1993, Ganpat Sutar had partitioned

the property and as such the Appellants are not entitled to seek

partition of the properties.

7. The dispute in the present proceedings is between the

family members. The previous suit was being Special Civil Suit No.712

of 2007 is pending arbitration. Besides the issue of oral partition

cannot be decided at this stage and until such adjudication it is

necessary to preserve status quo in respect of the properties in dispute

so as to prevent perpetration of wrong.

8. In this regard, it is also to be noted that by order dated

Megha 4/6

903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

16.6.2008 the learned Judge had directed the parties to maintain

status quo in respect of the suit property. The status quo order

continues to operate till date.

9. Mr. Dani, the learned senior counsel for the Respondents,

on instructions makes a statement that without prejudice to the rights

of the Respondents, the Respondents will not transfer, alienate or

create third party right in respect of the suit property till the disposal of

the suit. The statement is accepted.

10. In the light of the above statement and also considering the

fact that the issues involved in the suit require adjudication on merits,

in my considered view the appeal can be disposed of with directions to

the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit.

11. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of in above terms.

12. The learned Trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the

civil suit as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of

one year from the date of framing of the issues.

Megha 5/6

903_ao_61_20144 wi_caa_85_2014.doc

13. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits

of the matter and all the points and contentions of the respective

parties are expressly kept open.

14. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil

Application does not survive and hence, disposed of.



                                           (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)




Megha                                                                                        6/6



 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter