Bombay High Court
Laxmi Lahu Kadam vs Dilip Suresh Somvanshi And Others on 4 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21062
30-wp-2916-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
30 WRIT PETITION NO. 2916 OF 2024
1. Laxmi Lahu Kadam,
Age : 42 years., Occu. Household,
& Agri., r/o Jalkot,
Tq. Tuljapur, dist. Osmanabad ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Dilip s/p Suresh Somvanshi
Age : 59 yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Salgara (Tatar),
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad
2. Sau Chayabai w/o Dilip Somvanshi,
Age : 59 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Salgara (Tatar),
Tq. Tljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Lahu S/o Kushaba Kadam,
Age : 52 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmnabad
4. Tahsildar, Tuljapur,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.
5. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad ...Respondents
...
Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 4th AUGUST 2025
Narwade
30-wp-2916-2024
-2-
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The present petitioner is wife of respondent no.3. The suit
property comprises of agricultural land which is purchased by
respondent no.3 from respondent nos.1 and 2 vide registered sale
deed dated 20.10.2011. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have initiated
proceedings under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014 for cancellation of the sale deed. Respondent nos. 1 and 2
contend that the sale deed was an outcome of a money lending
transaction and executed only as a security for the loan advanced by
respondent no.3 to them. In the proceedings filed under the
provisions of Money Lending Act an inquiry was ordered in which it is
found that prima facie respondent nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the
suit property. The petitioner and her minor son namely Shrikrushna
Kadam had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.454 of 2016
against respondent no.3 for partition and separate possession of the
suit property. This suit is disposed of on 24.01.2017, in view of
amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent no.3. In
terms of the out of court settlement, the suit property is stated to be
granted to the petitioner permanently in view of her maintenance.
2. The present petition arises out of Regular Civil Suit No.160 of
Narwade
30-wp-2916-2024
2018 which is filed by the petitioner (wife) seeking decree of
perpetual injunction against respondents who are the vendors of her
husband, and her husband from disturbing her alleged possession
over the suit property in the said suit. The petitioner had filed an
application for grant of temporary injunction vide 'Exhibit-5'.
3. The application for grant of temporary injunction is rejected by
the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.08.2018. The learned
Trial Court has held that respondent nos.1 and 2 had prima facie
proved their possession over the suit property. The learned Trial
Court has referred to the spot panchanama prepared by the Talathi
and a report pursuant to the directions issued by the Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers under the
provisions of the Money-Lending Act. The learned Trial Court has also
referred to affidavit of adjoining land owners who had indicated
possession of respondent nos.1 and 2 over the suit property. Referring
to the sale deed, learned Trial Court has also observed that there is no
reference of delivery of possession of the suit property by respondent
nos.1 and 2 to respondent no.3 in the said sale deed. In view of the
above, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application for grant of
temporary injunction.
Narwade
30-wp-2916-2024
4. The petitioner assailed this order rejecting the application for
grant of temporary injunction by filing appeal under Oder 43 Rule
1(r) of Civil Procedure Code being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.57
of 2018 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023
passed by the learned Appellate Court.
5. The learned Appellate court has generally concurred with the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The learned Appellate
Court has also observed that the rival contentions with respect to the
sale deed will have to be adjudicated on merit and that till such time
the report by the Assistant Registrar showing possession of
respondent nos.1 and 2 over the suit property and also affidavits of
adjoining owners were required to be relied upon in order to
determine prima facie who is in possession of the suit property. In
view of the such documents, the learned Appellate Court has held
that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to prima facie establish her
possession over the suit property.
6. Both the Courts have concurrently held that prima facie
respondent nos. 1 and 2 appears to be in possession of the suit
property. The findings are based on material on record. The petitioner
is not in a position to point out any contrary material to demonstrate
possession over suit property, except for the compromise decree in the
Narwade
30-wp-2916-2024
earlier suit filed by her against her husband/respondent no.3 and a
letter dated 27.11.2020 issued by the Gramsevak to the Tahsildar,
Tuljapur stating that respondent nos.1 and 2 had obtained his
signature on the Panchanama showing their possession over the suit
property by exerting pressure on him and by threatening him. In this
regard, it needs to be mentioned that the order rejecting the
application for grant of temporary injunction is dated 13.08.2018.
This letter is dated 27.11.2020, the Panchanama is carried out in the
year 2018 prior to 13.08.2018 i.e. date on which application for grant
of temporary injunction is rejected. The statement in the letter dated
27.11.2020 is a bald statement lacking in all material particulars.
Prima facie the allegations made in the letter dated 27.11.2020 do
not inspire confidence. Moreover this letter is issued after the
application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial
Court.
7. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, no
case is made out for interference with the concurrent orders. The
petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed with not
order as to costs.
8. Needless to observe that the observations are only for the
purpose of determining prima facie case and will not be binding on
Narwade
30-wp-2916-2024
the learned Trial court while deciding the suit on merits.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]
Narwade
