Bombay High Court
Krishna Namdev Ambekar vs Sanjay Ranu Ambekar And Ors on 20 August, 2021
Bench: N. R. Borkar
1/4
Digitally
21-cwp-3266-20.doc
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2021.08.21
16:02:01
+0500
WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2020
Krishna N. Ambekar ...Petitioner
V/s.
Sanjay R. Ambekar and ors. ...Respondents.
Mr. A.B. Tajane for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Patil for the Respondents.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 20.08.2021.
P.C. :
1. This petition takes an exception to judgment and order dated
12.4.2018 passed by the District Judge-1, Khed-Rajgurunagar,
Dist. Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2015.
2. The respondents herein fled a suit for perpetual injunction
against the petitioner in relation to land bearing Gat No.28 of
Mouze Chikhali, Taluka Ambegaon, Dist. Pune. Alongwith the suit,
an application for temporary injunction was fled. It was prayed
that the petitioner be restrained from causing obstruction to the
peaceful possession of the respondents over the suit land. The
learned trial court, after hearing both parties, rejected the said
application by order dated 10.9.2015. Being aggrieved by the said
order of the trial court, the respondents fled Miscellaneous Civil
Appeal No. 27 of 2015. The learned appellate court allowed the
said appeal and granted the temporary injunction in favour of the
respondents.
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/4
2/4
21-cwp-3266-20.doc
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
grandfather of the petitioner was the tenant in the suit land and
his tenancy was never terminated. It is submitted that the trial
court on the basis of documents on record was justifed in
rejecting the application fled by the respondents. It is submitted
that the learned appellate court ought not to have interfered with
the well reasoned order of the trial court by ignoring the
documents on record. It is submitted that the learned appellate
court has not taken into consideration the legal position in respect
of protected tenant and thus committed an error in allowing the
appeal. It is submitted that the order passed by the appellate
court thus needs to be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the respondents are the owners of the suit land. It is
submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner was never
protected tenant in the suit land. It is further submitted that the
entry in revenue record showing the grandfather of the petitioner
as tenant in the suit land was deleted by the order of competent
authority in the year 1985, as it was found that the grandfather of
the petitioner was not the tenant in the suit land. It is submitted
that the said order of deletion till date has not been challenged. It
is submitted that the learned appellate court was therefore,
justifed in granting temporary injunction.
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/4
3/4
21-cwp-3266-20.doc
6. Admittedly, the respondents are the owners of the suit land.
The petitioner claims that his grandfather was tenant in the suit
land. However, it was found by the competent authority, i.e.
Additional Tahsildhar that the grandfather of the petitioner was not
the tenant in the suit land and entry in that respect was deleted
on 5.2.1985 from the revenue record. Admittedly, at that time
grandfather of the petitioner namely Shiva K. Ambekar was alive
and he died on 19.6.1991. The grandfather of the petitioner has,
however, not taken any exception to the said order of Additional
Tahsildhar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
notice was issued to the grandfather of the petitioner before
deleting his name from the revenue record. However, the said
order is not challenged till date on the said ground.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has fled the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal to
declare him tenant. However, the fact remains that the order of
Additional Tahsildhar has not been challenged till date.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the
learned appellate court was not justifed in relying upon the
entries in the revenue records to hold that the respondents are in
possession of the suit land as they are meant for only fscal
purpose. Sufce is to say that in absence of challenge of the order
of Additional Tahsildhar, no error can be found with the order of
the appellate court holding that the respondents in possession of
the suit land as admittedly, they are owners of the suit land.
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/4
4/4
21-cwp-3266-20.doc
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, no
interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. In
the result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
1] Writ Petition is dismissed.
2] Needless to mention that the trial court shall not get
influenced either by the order of the appellate court or of this
court while deciding the suit on merits.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 4/4
