sat

64. wp 4425-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION 4425 OF 2021

Baban @ Nainsukh Dagadu Kurandale & Anr.

…Petitioners

vs.

Dattu Sadashiv Kurandale & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Vivek V. Salunke for Petitioners.

Mr.K.N. Shermale for Respondents.

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 5 JULY 2022

P.C. :

1.

The Petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit

309/2008 which is instituted by Respondents 1 and 2 seeking declaration

and perpetual injunction.

2.

In the context of the controversy, it would be necessary to note

the prayer clause of the plaint, which reads thus :

अ)

तहससलदार साहेब सशरर यांचा क. रसता/५/एसआर/४३/

२०१७ चा

सद. १२/१०/

२०१८ रोजीचा आदेश वादीवर बंधनकारक नाही असा ठराव

करणेत यावा.

ब)

तहससलदार साहेब यांचेकडील क. रसता/५/एसआर/४३/

२०१७ अजारचे

सद. १२/१०/

२०१८ रोजीचे आदेशानुसार ्䵚तत␿वव㔾दद नं.

१ व २ यांनी वादीचे

दावा समळकतीमधये कोणतयाही ्䵚कव㔾र्䵠 अतत␿कमण

करन पाणयाचा पाट तयार

कर नये असा सनरंतर तासकद मनाईचा हुकु म वहावा.

क)

वादीचे दावा समळकतीमधील शांततामय ताबेवसहवाटीस ्䵚तत␿वव㔾दद नं. १

1 / 9

SANSKRUTI

A THAKUR

Digitally signed

by SANSKRUTI

A THAKUR

Date:

2022.07.13

11:05:55

+0530

sat

64. wp 4425-2021

व २ यांनी हरकत अडथळा कर नये असा सनरंतर ताकीद मनाईचा हुकूम

्䵚तत␿वव㔾दद नं.

१ व २ यांचे सवरधद करणेत यावा.

ड)

इतर योगय ते नयायाचे हुकूम वहावेत.

3.

In the context of the relief claimed in the suit, the plaint

averments may now be considered. Paragraph 1 describes the suit property

which is agricultural field assigned Gat 3463 admeasuring 0.19 HR.

Paragraph 2 avers that the suit property is a joint family property of the

plaintiffs and defendant 3. Paragraph 3 avers that the defendants 4 and 5

are legal heirs of deceased Kondabai Kalamkar who are impleaded as

formal parties to the suit. Paragraph 4 makes a reference to the

proceedings initiated by defendants 1 and 2 under the Mamlatdars’ Courts

Act, 1906 (Act) and the relief sought therein. The plaintiffs aver that the

application preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 under Section 5 of the Act

seeks injunctive relief restraining the non-applicants in the proceedings

under the Act from interfering with the water channel in the agricultural

fields 3464 and 3467 owned by the defendant 1 and seeks mandatory

order that the obstruction to the water channel in Gat assigned 3462, 3463

and 3466 be removed. It is further averred in paragraph 4 to the plaint that

the plaintiffs are not impleaded in the proceedings under Section 5 of the

Act and the relief prayed is granted on the basis of illegal panchanama.

Paragraph 5 then avers that the order passed by the Mamlatdar is

contrary to the principles of natural justice and in paragraph 6 the said

submission is reiterated. It is further averred in paragraph 7 that on the

basis of the illegal order of the Mamlatdar, one month prior to the

institution of the suit (the suit is instituted on 12.12.2018), the defendants

attempted to enter into the suit property and tried to make water channel.

According to the plaintiffs, when the defendants 1 and 2 were confronted,

2 / 9

sat

64. wp 4425-2021

the response was that they are entitled to do so in view of the order of the

Mamlatdar.

4.

It is on the basis of the averments noted supra, that the

plaintiffs have sought the injunctive relief. Even if the entire plaint is

holistically considered, it is clear that there is absolutely no averment in the

plaint which seeks to establish infringement of any right as would entitle

the plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief. The only averment in the plaint is

that the Mamlatdar has rendered an illegal order under the provisions of

the Act, and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of

invalidity of the said order and perpetual injunction. While there is a vague

and ambiguous statement in the plaint that the panchanama is illegal,

there is no further amplifi