Shri. Balaram Vitthal Pawar And ... vs Shri. Dyandev Balu Chimane ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3698 Bom

                                                                   2.7716.16 wp.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 7716 OF 2016


      Shri. Balaram Vitthal Pawar and others                      ....Petitioners

              V/s.

      Shri. Dyandev Balu Chimane                                  .....Respondent
      (Pawar)

      Mr. Pratap Patil for the Petitioners
      Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for Respondent no. 1


                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     FEBRUARY 26, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      Heard. Impugned in the petition is, Order passed in MCA No. 70

of 2015 on June 9, 2016 whereby the injunction refused by the

learned Trial Court on 19th October 2015 in simplicitor suit for

injunction being RCS No. 135 of 2015 was set aside and temporary

injunction is ordered against the Petitioner-Defendant restraining

them from obstructing Plaintiff's possession over land Gat Nos. 297,

360, 456 & 415.

2.7716.16 wp.doc

2] The submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner are,

Partition Suit initiated in 1975 came to be decreed and each of the

parties were held to be entitled to 1/3rd share. In 1992 under the

execution of the said Partition Decree, each of the decree holder and

Judgment-Debtor were allocated shares to the extent of 1/3rd and

accordingly mutation entry No. 149 was carried out. Subsequent

thereto, said mutation entry No. 149 was cancelled and mutation

entry No. 670 was carried out pursuant to which it can be inferred

that Petitioners are in settled possession of the property and not the

Respondent-Plaintiff. Learned counsel would urge that once the

Petitioners are in settled position of the suit property by virtue of

execution of the Partition Decree, court below has committed an error

in granting temporary injunction.

3] Mr. Mankapure, learned counsel for the Respondent original

Plaintiff would urge that mutation entry No. 670 is already cancelled

by the order of the Additional Collector, Sangli and mutation entry

No. 149 is restored to the fle in favour of the Plaintiff and that being

2.7716.16 wp.doc

so, aforesaid contentions do not hold any substance.

4]     I have appreciated the submissions.




5]     Mr. Mankapure has produced a copy of order dated 18 th May

2020 whereby it can be inferred that mutation entry No. 670 was

cancelled and mutation entry No. 149 was restored from which it can

be inferred that by virtue of partition decree, respondent plaintiffs are

in possession of the suit property.

6] In the aforesaid background, order of grant of injunction

appears to be quite justifed.

7] No case for interference is made out. Petition fails, stands

dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]