Bombay High Court
Shivappa Girmalla Dhangar(Since ... vs Bhimanna Girmalla Dhanagar And ... on 1 April, 2021
Bench: S. K. Shinde
9-SAST-1439-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1439 OF 2021
Shivappa Girmalla Dhangar
Since Deceased through
Legal Heirs ... Appellants
Vs
Bhimanna G. Dhanagar
& Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Appellants.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 1st APRIL, 2021.
P.C. :
Heard.
2 Issue notice to the respondents returnable after
eight weeks.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 1/4
9-SAST-1439-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.1440 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1439 OF 2021
Shivappa Girmalla Dhangar
Since Deceased through
Legal Heirs ... Applicants
Vs
Bhimanna G. Dhanagar
& Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Applicants.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 1st APRIL, 2021.
P.C. :
Issue notice to the respondents returnable after
eight weeks.
2 Applicants instituted Regular Civil Suit No.18 of
2006 seeking declaration of their title in respect of Gat
No.621 and 622. Defendants in the suit, are brothers of the
plaintifs. It is plaintifs' case that after demise of their
Shivgan 2/4
9-SAST-1439-2021.odt
father in 1969, joint family properties were partitioned in
November, 1977. In the said partition, suit lands Gat
Nos.621 and 622 had fallen to their share. It appears,
defendants were disputing plaintifs' exclusive right over
the suit properties and, therefore, the subject suit was
instituted. Defendants contended that Gat No.500, 621 and
622 were not partitioned for some reason and were kept for
enjoyment and use of all the family members. In the suit,
defendants raised counter-claim and sought, (i) injunction
to restrain the plaintifs from interfering and/or obstructing
their possession over Gat Nos.621 and 622, and (ii)
declaration that they are co-owners of suit lands and Gat
No.50. The Trial Court decreed the suit but dismissed the
counter-claim. In Appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the
suit and allowed the counter-claim vide the judgment and
order dated 11th November, 2020. Against the decree of the
Appellate Court, this appeal is preferred. The Appellate
Court while granting the counter-claim, declared plaintifs
Shivgan 3/4
9-SAST-1439-2021.odt
and defendants, both co-owners of Gat Nos.500, 621 and
622 but incorrectly restrained the plaintifs from interfering
and obstructing defendants' possession, over these lands.
Thus, the reliefs, granted are prima-facie intracontradictory.
3 In consideration of the facts and in view of the
pleadings in the Written Statement, as and by way of ad-
interim relief, operation of Clause (6) of, the operative order
dated 11th November, 2020 passed in Regular Civil Appeal
No.64 of 2012 is stayed.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 4/4
