Bombay High Court
Arjun Ganpat Gaikwad vs Sonu Ganpat Gaikwad And Ors on 2 February, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:2737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013
Shri Arjun s/o Ganpat Gaikwad
... APPELLANT
(Ori. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1. Sonu Ganpat Gaikwad
2. Pandurang Ganpat Gaikwad
3. Sau. Kusumbai Suresh Kadam
... RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Defendants)
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate for the
appellant
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C. :-
1. Against concurrent judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No.
367/2007 dated 23/06/2010 and judgment and order dated 17/07/2012
passed in R.C.A. No. 212/2010, original plaintiff has preferred this appeal
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of
convenience.
sa.125.13.odt 1 of 6
3. Plaintiff filed suit for injunction against defendants restraining them
from obstructing the measurement of suit property by City Surveyor.
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers whereas defendant No.3 is sister of
plaintiff. It is a case of plaintiff that house No. 5367 situated on City
Survey No. 2480(B) is self acquired property of their mother Parvatibai
who died on 22/08/1998. According to him on 09/09/1992 by executing
registered gift deed suit property i.e. half portion of the house was gifted
to the plaintiff by her. It is alleged that the defendants are obstructing
the plaintiff from carrying out measurement of the suit property.
4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statements. Both denied the
contention of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property being self
acquired property of their mother. It is claimed by the defendant No.1
that the suit property is his self acquired property purchased in the name
of mother on 02/03/1972. Defendant No.2 on the other hand claims that
he resides there and has repaired the part of the said property.
Defendant No.3 supported plaintiff.
5. Learned Trial Court framed issues as to whether plaintiff proves
that he is in exclusive lawful possession of suit property and he is
entitled for injunction against defendants. Plaintiff examined himself at
Exhibit 24 and also led evidence of Baburao (Exhibit 30) who is witness
sa.125.13.odt 2 of 6
to the gift deed. He also examined defendant No.3 (sister) as his
witness. No evidence was led by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Learned
Trial Court dismissed the suit with recording of the findings that the
plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit property and that he
has failed to prove any obstruction caused by the defendants in order to
grant any injunction against them. Learned First Appellate Court
confirmed the said decree.
6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the both
Courts below have erred in recording the finding about the suit property
not being exclusively held by the plaintiff and that he has failed to prove
the gift deed. It is his submission that since admittedly suit property is in
the name of Parvatibai, in view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act she
has become exclusive owner thereof and as such she had right to gift the
property to the plaintiff which she accordingly gifted.
7. Perusal of the pleadings show that plaintiff has come out with the
case that the property in question is self acquired property of his mother
Parvatibai whereas the defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied the said fact. Since
plaintiff has filed suit for seeking injunction against the defendants, the
initial burden is on him to prove that he is in lawful and exclusive
possession of the suit property. Perusal of the evidence on record shows
sa.125.13.odt 3 of 6
that plaintiff's witness, i.e. defendant No.3 has candidly admitted that
the suit property is purchased by their father sale of his another house.
This witness is not disowned by plaintiff by declaring her as hostile. Thus,
appropriate evidentiary value needs to be given to her statement with
regard to relevant fact in issue. The said admission of this witness clearly
shows that the suit property is not self acquired property of Parvatibai.
8. Apart from that perusal of the evidence on record further shows
that the findings recorded by the Trial Court about refusal to accept gift
deed is in consonance with the evidence on record. It is also held by the
Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in exclusive
possession of the suit property in order to seeking injunction against the
defendants. This Court finds no perversity in the said findings having
regard to the evidence led by the plaintiff himself.
9. In order to succeed to get order of injunction against defendants it
was incumbent on part of the plaintiff to prove that the defendants
actually obstructed in measurement of the suit property by surveyor.
Plaintiff himself has admitted in his evidence that no City Survey Officer
has visited the premises. As rightly held by the learned Trial Court that
the plaintiff has failed to prove the obstruction at the hands of the
defendants and hence refusal of grant of injunction against defendants is
sa.125.13.odt 4 of 6
fully justified. Record indicates that there is material inconsistency in the
statement of the plaintiff in the plaint about acquisition of possession of
the suit property after execution of the gift whereas the gift itself shows
that the property is already in possession of the plaintiff. Thus, as rightly
observed by the Trial Court there is inconsistency in the evidence led by
the plaintiff which goes to the root of the case creating doubt about the
execution of gift deed itself.
10. As far as contentions sought to be raised by learned counsel for
plaintiff taking aid of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, it needs to be
noted that in order to cover the present case under the said provision,
the property in question must be acquired by woman, by inheritance or
partition or in lieu of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or by
purchase or by prescription. There is absolutely no evidence on record to
show that suit property is self acquired property of her. Similarly it is
even not case of plaintiff that she acquired the property by any other
mode. On the other hand, there is evidence on record to show that the
property was purchased by consideration received from sale of other
properties by father of plaintiff and defendants. It is not claimed by
plaintiff that father purchased property for maintenance of wife. Thus,
present case is not covered by Section 14 of the said Act. In any case
both Courts below have rightly refused to accept alleged gift in favour of
sa.125.13.odt 5 of 6
plaintiff made by Parvatibai.
11. Moreover, since the plaintiff has failed to prove any obstruction at
the hands of the defendants and also was not able to establish his
exclusive possession over the suit property, this Court finds reason or
justification to cause any interference in the impugned judgment. Above
discussions shows that no substantial question of law is involved in this
appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed with costs.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
sa.125.13.odt 6 of 6
