Bombay High Court
Umar Syed Akbar Jahagirdar vs Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum Syed ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
959.WP.7851.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7855 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
2) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
1/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
2/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8015 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
3/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8016 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
4/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9689 OF 2021
Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
4) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
5/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9690 OF 2021
Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9691 OF 2021
Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
7/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9692 OF 2021
Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
8/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:01 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 09.12.2021
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule in all the Writ Petitions. The Rules are made
returnable forthwith. The learned advocates of the respective respondents
waive service. At the request of both the sides all these matters are being
disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
2. Though in different capacities same persons are parties to these
Writ Petitions and most of the facts are common as they are brothers and
959.WP.7851.21.odt
sisters inter se. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition these
matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. Further for the
sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, I am referring to them as father,
brothers and sisters.
3. The facts which are necessary for decision of these Writ
Petitions may be summarized :
(i) The father of the parties by name Akbar Sayed
Nuruddin Jahagirdar died in March 2020 leaving behind a widow,
four sons and five daughters who are all parties in these
proceedings.
(ii) All the four sons claiming to have received some
portion of immovable properties owned by the father and alleged
to have been gifted to them by way of an oral gift filed four
separate suits seeking declaration of their ownership over the
respective portions of the property and for perpetual injunction,
arraying the father and the other three sons as defendants. The
daughters were not the parties to those suits.
(iii) In all the four suits the parties entered into a
compromise and the suits were decreed in terms of those
compromise before the Lok Adalat in the year 2013. By way of
such compromise, the father admitted the fact of gift and
consequently ownership and possession of the sons over the
respective portions described in those suits.
959.WP.7851.21.odt
(iv) One of the daughters Sayyeda Noorjaha has filed four
different suits inter alia challenging the compromise decrees on the
ground that those are vitiated by fraud and claimed the decrees to
be nullity. She also claimed perpetual injunction restraining the
sons from alienating/creating third party interest in the suit
properties. By way of separate applications in all the four suits
she claimed temporary injunction in terms of the main relief. The
trial court rejected her applications for temporary injunction.
(v) Being aggrieved, she challenged these orders by
preferring separate Miscellaneous Civil Appeals under Section 104
read with Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellate
court allowed these appeals partly. It quashed and set aside the
orders of the trial court refusing temporary injunction and directed
the respective defendants sons from alienating or creating third
party interest in one of the suit properties namely Survey No.9/1
to 9/4 but not in respect of other suit property bearing Survey
No.228/1/1.
(vi) Aggrieved by such orders in the appeals, daughter
Sayyeda Noorjaha has preferred Writ Petition Nos.7851/2021,
7855/2021, 8015/2021 and 8016/2021 to the extent the
injunction is refused in respect of Survey No.228/1/1.
(vii) The four sons have challenged the self same order of
the appellate court aggrieved by the limited temporary injunction
959.WP.7851.21.odt
in respect of Survey No.9/1 to 9/4 by preferring separate Writ
Petition Nos.9689/2021, 9690/2021, 9691/2021 and 9692/2021.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Barde and Mr. Quadri holding for
Mrs. Kulkarni for the daughters Sayyeda Noorjaha who is the plaintiff
vehemently submit that the compromise was obtained by practicing fraud.
Father was not in his senses. The sons took advantage of his ill health and
without impleading the wife and daughters the sons managed to obtain
compromise decrees before the Lok Adalat. Though the sons claimed to
have received their respective shares by way of an oral gift, there was no
evidence about delivery of possession. Those were collusive decrees and
were not binding on the daughters. Daughter Sayyeda Noorjaha could get
the knowledge only when an attempt was made to give effect to the
compromise decrees by way of Mutation Entry No.1682 and 2887 in
February 2020. When she contacted father he expressed ignorance about
the decrees and flatly denied to have ever gifted any property to the sons.
When a proceeding was about to be initiated unfortunately the father died.
All these facts and circumstances were overlooked by the two courts below.
The sons are bent upon to dispose of the properties. Already some portion
of these have been disposed of. Irreparable loss and inconvenience would
be caused to daughter Sayyeda Noorjaha who is the plaintiff if the sons are
not restrained from creating any third party interest. Though the appellate
court conceded to some extent, it illegally refused temporary injunction in
respect of the suit property Survey No.228/1/1.
959.WP.7851.21.odt
5. Per contra, the learned advocate Mr. Solshe for the sons
vehemently submits that the suits are not maintainable in as much as the
compromise decrees were passed before a Lok Adalat and by virtue of the
provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 the suits
challenging the award on the ground of same being obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation are not maintainable. He would refer to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Bharvagi Constructions and Anr. Vs.
Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.; 2018 (1) ALL MR 459 (S.C.).
6. Mr. Solshe would then submit that the compromise decrees
were passed in the year 2013 whereas the father was alive till the year 2020.
He never raised any objection to the validity of those decrees for a period of
7 years and it is after his demise that plaintiff Sayyeda Noorjaha has now
raked up the issues. He would submit that the wife and the other daughters
of the father are not raising any dispute. He would further submit that the
father has allotted plots of 2 Are portion from the two suit properties to each
of these daughters and to that extent they do not have any objection but are
raising the objections in respect of the portions of the suit properties allotted
to the sons.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers. At the out set, it is necessary to note that there is a serious issue
as regards maintainability of the suit. The suits challenge the compromise
decrees passed by a Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation. One need only to refer to the decision of Supreme Court
959.WP.7851.21.odt
in the case of Bharvagi Constructions (supra). Both the courts below does
not seem to be alive to such statutory provision and the precedent which
goes to the root of the matters.
8. Again, admittedly, these compromise decrees were passed in the
year 2013. Admittedly, the father died in the year 2020. During his life
time neither he himself nor any of his daughters made any attempt to
question the compromise decrees. Rather, today the learned advocate Mr.
Quadri tenders across the bar a photocopy of the affidavit purportedly sworn
by the deceased father Sayed Akbar Nuruddin Jahagirdar dated 03.10.2018.
The contents of these affidavits would clearly indicate that he was fully alive
to the passing of the compromise decrees. Not only that he admitted the
effect of such compromise decrees. He even gave a consent for mutating the
names pursuant to such compromise. In the process he also stated about
allotment of 2 Are portion to each of his five daughters from both the suits
properties Survey No.9/4 and Survey No.228/1/1.
9. If such is the case, when the father himself was alive to the
passing of the compromise decrees and admitted their validity and wanted
an effect to be given, this would be an additional feather in the cap of the
sons. If really such was the state of affairs, there was no question of one of
his daughters now turning up and puting up all the grievance including
touching the validity of the compromise decrees.
10. All in all, this circumstance is clearly indicative of the fact that
in spite of being alive for seven years after passing of the compromise
959.WP.7851.21.odt
decrees and was having full knowledge the father had never raised any
objection.
11. Though a faint attempt is made by the plaintiff Sayyeda
Noorjaha to even allege collusion in obtaining the compromise decrees, she
does not specifically aver that it was a collusion between the father and the
sons.
12. Though for not all the aforementioned reasons, the trial court
had considered the nature of the dispute and had rightly exercised the
discretion in rejecting the applications for temporary injunction. By no
stretch of imagination, the discretion can be said to have been refused to be
exercised illegally. There was no perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness.
13. In spite of such state of affairs, without bearing in mind the
aforementioned facts and circumstances and even oblivious to the limited
scope of causing any interference while hearing an appeal under Order XLIII
of the Civil Procedure Code and even without recording any specific reason
or ground which entitled him to substitute his own discretion in place of the
discretion exercised by the trial court, the learned Judge of the appellate
court has partly allowed the appeals and granted temporary injunction in
respect of the suit property Survey No.9/1 to 9/4. Without pointing out the
perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the trial court, he could not have
quashed and set aside the orders and substituted his own discretion in place
of the one exercised by the trial court. I, therefore, find no hesitation in
concluding that the appellate court has clearly erred in exercising the
959.WP.7851.21.odt
discretion. The observations and the conclusions of the appellate court are
not sustainable in law besides being beyond the purview of limited scope of
powers vested in it.
14. The Writ Petition Nos.7851/2021, 7855/2021, 8015/2021 and
8016/2021 filed by the original plaintiff Sayyeda Noorjaha are dismissed.
The Writ Petition Nos.9689/2021, 9690/2021, 9691/2021 and 9692/2021
filed by the sons defendants are allowed.
15. The judgment and order passed by the appellate court in the
Miscellaneous Civil Appeals are quashed and set aside.
16. The Rules are made absolute in the above terms.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
