Dashrath Ashruba Bawne And Ors vs Kausalyabai Trimbak Yede
2021 Latest Caselaw 14724 Bom

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10910 OF 2012
                                      IN
                       SECOND APPEAL NO.642 OF 2012


                 DASHRATH ASRUBA BAWNE AND OTHERS
                                   VERSUS
                         KAUSHALYABAI TRIMBAK YEDE
                                      ...
                 Mr. D.P. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants
             Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the sole respondent
                                      ...

                                    WITH

                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10693 OF 2012
                                      IN
                       SECOND APPEAL NO.416 OF 2013


                         KAUSHALYABAI TRIMBAK YEDE
                                   VERSUS
                 DASHRATH ASRUBA BAWNE AND OTHERS
                                      ...
                  Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant
    Mr. D.P. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2A, 3 to 6
                                      ...

                               CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
                               DATE :       07th OCTOBER, 2021




::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 05:10:29 :::
                                          2                                   CA_10910_2012




ORDER :

1 Both the parties are praying for stay to the impugned Judgment

and Decree by the First Appellate Court. As regards the declaration is

concerned, prima facie there is substance before this Court to consider that

both the Courts below have held that the original plaintiff is the owner of the

property. However, as regards the possession of the plaintiff over the suit

land on the date of the suit is concerned, both the Courts have given contrary

findings. Under such circumstance, the point cannot be so decided at

interlocutory stage. Another fact is that, since so many years the matter is

pending for admission and at any point of time the plaintiff has not come

with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the defendants, there

need not be an interim protection by this Court. Therefore, both the Civil

Applications to be heard along with the main appeals.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )

agd