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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J
Sangita w/o Laxmanrao Kawatkar – Appellant
Versus
Kamal w/o Vidyadhar Baraskar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.R. Agrawal
For the Respondents: Mr. S.G. Malode

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1.Heard.

2. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

Non appears for the respondent No. 3 though served.

3. The plaintiff/petitioner, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, that he is the lawful owner of the suit property being Survey No.16/2, admeasuring 0.81 HR, situated at Mouza Tembhurkheda, Taluka Warud, District Amravati, on the basis of sale deed dated 28.02.2017 executed by the defendant No.3 in his favour, where under, he was placed in possession of the above said field. Further relief for restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 causing any disturbance to his possession was also claimed. In this suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner at Exh.5.

4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, alongwith the written statement also filed a counter claim claiming that on the basis of a partition deed dated 27.06.2005, the defendant No. 2 was given the ownership and the possession of the suit property and was in cultivating possession of the same. An application for temporary injunction was also filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 at Exh.15 for restrai

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top