SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J
Devendra Ramchandra Palsamkar - Appellant
Versus
Gajanan Raghunath Patkar - Respondent
First Appeal No.660 of 2013 With Civil Application No.2138 of 2013
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Ms.Aditi Naikare a/w Mr.Aniesh Jadhav, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik a/w Ms.Namrata Parmar, Ms.Laxmi Mishra i/b M/s.Kaushik and Co., Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Permanent injunction - The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for unauthorized construction on their property, claiming ownership and possession based on historical conveyance and tax payments. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their ownership and possession. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 35)

(B) Ownership and Possession - The court emphasized that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession. The plaintiffs provided evidence of ownership and possession through property records and tax payments, countering the defendant's claims. (Paras 21, 22, 33)

(C) Forged Documents - The defendant's reliance on alleged forged documents was rejected as the documents were not produced in court. The court held that the plaintiffs were not required to seek a declaration of title as they had established clear title and possession. (Paras 10, 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, co-owners of a property, filed a suit against the defendant for unauthorized construction. They established their ownership through a deed of conveyance and regular tax payments. The defendant claimed ownership based on forged documents. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners and in possession of the property, dismissing the defendant's claims. The court confirmed the decree for permanent injunction against the defendant. (Paras 35)

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs established possession for a permanent injunction and whether the defendant's claims of ownership created a cloud on the plaintiffs' title. (Paras 21, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs had sufficiently established their possession and ownership, and the defendant's claims were unsubstantiated as he failed to produce evidence. The court confirmed that a plaintiff in possession is entitled to an injunction against interference. (Paras 22, 33)

Result: First Appeal dismissed; decree confirmed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs filed suit for injunction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant's unauthorized construction (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. defendant's claims of ownership (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. first appeal dismissed (Para 35)

Judgement:

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)

1. This First Appeal is filed by the Original Defendant No.1 challenging the Judgement dated 1st October 2012, passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, decreeing Suit No.1341 of 2010.

2. In the present Judgement, the parties are described in the same manner as they were described in the Suit.

3. Suit No.1341 of 2010 was filed seeking the following relief:

“a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the defendant No.1 his servants, agents, contractor/s or any person or persons claiming through under or by him permanently by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering into, remaining upon, dispossessing the Plaintiffs and/or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property and/or constructing unauthorised sheds/structures/chawl's and/or from carrying out any unauthorised construction activities of whatsoever nature of otherwise from encroaching upon the suit property i.e. the land admeasuring m24 Gunthas equivalent to 2458.5sq. meters or thereabouts bearing survey No.178, Hissa No.1, Corresponding C.R.S.NO.171, 171/1 to 6 of Village Malad (East) Taluka Borivli, District Mumbai suburban together with three structures assessed for the property taxes under Ward Nos. PN6438-299A, PN 6438-2- 299 AB, P-6438(3) 299-AC standing thereon known as Patkar Wadi, Manchhubhai R Road, Malad (East) Mumbai 400097 and as more Particularly delineated by red colour on the plan annexed and marked Exhibit -A to the Plaint or any part or portion thereof.

4. The Plaintiffs’ case in the Plaint is as under:

a. The Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are the co-owners of the property admeasuring 24 Gunthas, equivalent to 2458.5 sq.meters or thereabouts, bearing survey No.178, Hissa No.1, corresponding to C.T.S.No.171, 171/1 to 6 of Village Malad (East) Taluka Borivli, District Mumbai Suburban, together with three structures, assessed for property taxes, standing thereon known as Patkar Wadi, Manchhubhai Road, Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097 (“the suit property”).

b. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 18th October 1897, one Purshottam Atmaram Patkar, the grand father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.2 to 7, purchased the suit property from Haridas Narayandas for the consideration and on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said Purshottam Atmaram Patkar died in the year 1920 leaving behind him three sons namely (i) Raghunath Purshottam Patkar (ii) Krishnarao Purshottam Patkar and (iii) Pandharinath Purshottam Patkar. The said Pandharinath Purshottam Patkar died intestate as a bachelor on 28th October 1940. The said Raghunath Purshottam Patkar died on 6th March 1968 leaving behind him his widow Sumati Raghunath Patkar, his three sons, namely the Plaintiffs, and his six married daughters, namely Defendant Nos.2 to 7, as his only heirs and legal representatives. The mother of the Plaintiffs, Sumati Raghunath Patkar, died on 23rd December 1982. Further, the said Krishnarao Purshottam Patkar died intestate as a bachelor on 9th October 1973. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.2 to 7 became the co-owners of the suit property by virtue of operation of law.

c. The name of Krishnarao Purshottam Patkar is shown as Kabjedar in Village Form Nos.7, 7A and 12 in respect of the suit property. The names of the Plaintiffs, their mother and sisters (Defendant Nos.2 to 7) are shown as holders in the extract of Property Register Cards in respect of the suit property. The Government of Maharashtra has issued Sanads and map in respect of the suit property under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 , in the joint names of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top