Bombay High Court
SUNIL DNYANDEO CHALKE AND ANR.versusKAILAS PRADHAN KUNJIR AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Civil Judge did not err; the plaint is maintainable and not barred, so the revision is dismissed.
Summary
The plaintiff, Kailas Pradhan Kunjir, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to protect his possession of 12 R of land in Pimple Saudagar, asserting possession through an agreement for sale dated 17 March 1989. The defendants, who claim title to an adjoining 5 R based on registered sale deeds of February 1996, alleged that a cadastral survey measurement made on 5 September 2022 was illegal and threatened the plaintiff’s possession. The plaintiff’s application to have the plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 was denied by the Civil Judge, who held that the suit disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by limitation. The applicants sought revision, arguing that the cause of action was illusory, the suit was time‑barred, and that an agreement for sale does not create a property right. The High Court found no jurisdictional error, held that the limitation period did not bar the suit and that the plaintiff’s possessory claim could be adjudicated at trial, and therefore dismissed the revision application.
Issues considered
- The plaint discloses a cause of action sufficient to proceed
- The plaint is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act
- An agreement for sale creates a right to possess immovable property
- The Civil Judge erred in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11 (a), Order VII Rule 11 (b), Order VII Rule 11 (c), Order VII Rule 11 (d)
Subjects
- perpetual injunction
- possession
- boundary dispute
- cadastral survey
- limitation
- Order VII Rule 11
- revision jurisdiction
- civil procedure
- agreement for sale
- property rights
Judgment
-CRA-500-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2026
Vimal Dnyandeo Chalke, Since deceased through ...Applicants
her heirs, Sunil Dnyandeo Chalke & Anr
Versus
Kailas Pradhan Kunjir and Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Akshay Petkar, with Mayuresh Ingale and Kinnari Raut, i/b
Mayuresh Lagu, for the Applicants.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER:
1. Heard Mr. Akshay Petkar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 28 th
July 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby an Application
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
preferred by the Applicants-original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.28
18:31:34 +0530 rejection of the Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b),
(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), came to
be rejected.
3. Respondent No.1-Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of
perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants from causing
obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff
ARS 1/5
-CRA-500-2026.DOC
over 12 R land out of Gat No. 61/1, Pimple Saudagar (“the suit
property) and also for damages.
4. One Pradhan Kunjir, the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff, came
in possession of the suit property under an Agreement for Sale executed
on 17th March 1989 by the then holders Kanu Sathe, Jalindar Sathe and
Machindra Sathe. The predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff, had parted
with the entire consideration and had been in possession of the suit
property under the said Agreement for Sale. The Plaintiff has erected a
structure over the suit property with a compound wall.
5. The predecessor-in-title of the Defendants under the registered
Sale Deeds dated 13th February 1996 and 16th February 1996 had
acquired 5 R land from Suresh Kate and Kaushalya Tiwaskar. However,
the Defendants never obtained the possession of the land purportedly
purchased under the said Sale Deeds. There are discrepancies in the
boundaries of the lands shown in the Sale Deeds in favour of the
Defendants and the Sale Deeds in favour of the Vendors of the
predecessor-in-title of the Defendants. Thus, disputes have arisen
between the Plaintiff and Defendants over possession and boundaries of
the suit properties and possession thereof.
6. The Plaintiff claims the measurement carried out by the cadastral
surveyor on 5th September 2022 is faulty and illegal. Therefore, the
Defendants have no right to disturb the possession and enjoyment of
ARS 2/5
-CRA-500-2026.DOC
the Plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of the said measurement.
Hence, the suit.
7. Mr. Petkar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that
the cause of action shown in the Plaint is illusory. Secondly, the Plaintiff
has referred to the measurement of the year 2018 and, yet, instituted
the suit in the year 2025, which is ex-facie barred by law of limitation.
Thirdly, the Plaintiff is claiming on the basis of an Agreement for Sale
which does not create any interest in the immovable property. In
contrast, the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants have acquired the
5R land out of Survey No. 61/1 under the registered Sale Deeds. Thus
the Plaint deserves to be rejected.
8. I find it difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Petkar. As
noted above, the Plaintiff has claimed that, the predecessor-in-title of
the Plaintiff and, after his demise, the Plaintiff has been in actual and
peaceful possession of the suit property pursuant to an Agreement for
Sale dated 17th March 1989 executed in favour of the predecessor-in-
title of the Plaintiff. Conversely, though the predecessor-in-title of the
Defendants claim to have acquired 5R land out of Survey No. 61/1
under the registered Sale Deed, yet, the predecessor-in-title of the
Defendants and, after her demise, the Defendants have never been put
in possession of the suit property.
ARS 3/5
-CRA-500-2026.DOC
9. It appears disputes have arisen between the parties and the
proceedings have ensued before the Revenue Authorities. On the basis
of the measurement, the legality and validity of which the Plaintiff
assails, the Defendants have allegedly threatened to dispossess the
Plaintiff.
10. The aforesaid being the nature of the suit, it cannot be urged that
the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The suit also does not
seem to be ex-faice barred by law of limitation as the measurement was
allegedly carried out on 5th September 2022, though the Application for
measurement was filed in the year 2018. Whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to protect his possessory rights on the strength of the assertions
that the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff was put in possession of the
suit property pursuant to an Agreement for Sale is a matter for
adjudication at the trial.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid nature of the claim in the suit,
where the Plaintiff claims that his settled possession is threatened on
the basis of the measurement carried out by the cadastral surveyor, the
learned Civil Judge committed no error in rejecting the Application for
the rejection of the Plaint.
12. The decision in the case of Correspondence RBANMS
Educational Institution Vs B Gunashekar and Anr, 1 on which reliance
was placed by Mr Petkar, does not govern the facts of the case at hand.
1 2025 SCC OnLine 793
ARS 4/5
-CRA-500-2026.DOC
13. Thus, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court does
not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order as
there does not appear any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in
the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court.
14. The Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 5/5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.