Sharad Shankar Wadar Through Its ... vs Anna Nagu Wadar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1281 Bom

                                                                          (5) WPST-98982-20.doc

BDP-SPS

  Bharat

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  D.
  Pandit
 Digitally signed
 by Bharat D.




                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 Pandit
 Date:
 2021.01.21
 14:14:56 +0530




                                    WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 98982 OF 2020

                    Sharad Shankar Wadar                       ..... Petitioner.
                         V/s
                    Anna Nagu Wadar and Ors.                   ..... Respondents.

                    Mr. Nikhil Pawar for the Petitioner.
                    Mr. Umesh Pawar for Respondent No.1.

                                        CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                        DATE:      JANUARY 19, 2021
                    P.C.:-

                    1]       This Petition is by original Defendant No.1 i.e. Appellant in

                    Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2017.



                    2]       The Petitioner has questioned the impugned order dated

21/11/2020 passed in the aforesaid Appeal by the Adhoc District

Judge-1, Islampur allowing application-Exhibit-37 moved by

Respondent No.1-Plaintiff whereby Petitioner/Defendant No.1, his

agents, servants and representatives are temporarily restrained from

causing any obstruction to the Plaintiffs' possession over property 1/B

till final decision of the appeal.

(5) WPST-98982-20.doc

3] Regular Civil Suit No.428 of 2013 was initiated by Respondent

No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction. The said Regular Civil

Suit came to be decreed vide judgment and order dated 21/06/2017

whereby Respondent No.1 is declared as owner of suit property and

injunction was ordered against Defendants i.e. Petitioners.

4] Feeling aggrieved, present Petitioners preferred an appeal in

which judgment of the Trial Court dated 21/06/2017 is informed to

be stayed.

5] Respondent No.1 i.e. original Plaintiff moved an application for

temporary injunction against the Appellant/Defendant No.1 claiming

that out of Gat No.213/2B situated at village Bahadurwadi, Taluka

Walva, District Sangli, 20R land was sold by Defendant No.2 vide Sale

Deed dated 16/05/2002 to original Plaintiff i.e. Respondent No.1

herein. Another 12R land out of the same was sold vide Sale Deed

dated 24/09/2004. As far as Sale Deed dated 16/05/2002 is

concerned, there is no dispute, whereas there is a dispute about 12R

land transferred vide Sale Deed dated 24/09/2004.

(5) WPST-98982-20.doc

6] According to the Respondents, lower Appellate Court stayed

decree of the Trial Court on 10/01/2020. Taking disadvantage of the

same, the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 is trying to harvest sugarcane

crop out of the land to the extent of 12R though in law he has no right

to do so.

7] Considering the said claim, impugned order of injunction came

to be passed against the Petitioner.

8] Mr. Nikhil Pawar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/original

Defendant No.1 would urge that once the decree dated 10/01/2020 is

stayed, injunction as was ordered in the decree will cease to operate

and that being so, the Petitioner has every right to harvest the

sugarcane as Sale Deed to the extent of 12R land dated 24/9/2004 is

under cloud. According to him, Petitioner/Defendant No.1 at the time

of pendency of the suit was not keeping well and as such could not

participate on merit and that being so, he was unable to establish

possession over the suit property. However relying on certain

documents issued by Water Supply Co-operative Society Ltd, Co-

operative Sugarcane Factory, he would try to establish his claim of

(5) WPST-98982-20.doc

possession over the said 12R land.

9] I am afraid. Such evidence cannot be examined in Writ Petition

particularly when there exists decree against the Petitioner wherein he

is injuncted from interfering with possession of Respondent

No.1/Plaintiff over the suit property. Apart from above, it is to be

noted that the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of the

Plaintiff depicts boundaries and it is apparent that 12R land was

purchased by Respondent No.1, which is adjacent to the land

purchased vide 2002 Sale Deed to the extent of 20R. This Sale Deed-

Exhibit-65 in categorical terms establishes right of Respondent No.1.

10] In the aforesaid backdrop, it cannot be said that impugned order

of injunction is without any basis or evidence. Rather there is title in

favour of the Respondents in regard to the suit property and that being

so, no case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out.

11] Petition as such fails and stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )