SHRI. RANJEET TUKARAM VHATKARversusSHRI. ANANT POSHINATH KOLI AND ORS

                                                                       11-CRA-773-2015.docx

      rrpillai                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2015

                        Shri Ranjeet Tukaram Vhatkar              …    Applicant
                               Vs.
                        Shri Anant Poshinath Koli and             …    Respondents
                        Others


                        Mr. Balakrishna K. Raje for the Applicant.

                                                      CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                                      DATE :      21st AUGUST 2026

                        ORDER :


                        1.     This civil revision application is filed by the original

                        obstructionist to challenge the order passed by the appeal

                        bench of the Small Causes Court. The obstruction notice was

                        dismissed by the trial court. In an appeal preferred by the

                        original plaintiff, his obstruction is ordered to be removed by

                        directing the applicant (obstructionist) to vacate the suit

                        premises, i.e. Room No. 1, and hand over the same to the

                        plaintiff.


                        2.     The original plaintiff had filed a declaratory suit against

                        respondent nos. 2 to 7, who are the landlords. The suit was
           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH     PILLAI
                        decreed by holding that the original plaintiff was the tenant in
PILLAI     Date:
           2026.08.25
           10:49:16
           +0530                                        1/6
                                                   11-CRA-773-2015.docx

respect of the suit premises, bearing Room No. 1, admeasuring

10’ x 25’. The landlords were directed to hand over one of the

three ground-floor rooms to the plaintiff. The decree was

obstructed by the present applicant based on an agreement

dated 23rd June 2003 executed by defendant nos. 2 to 5. Based

on the said agreement, the obstructionist claims to occupy the

ground-floor premises.


3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit for

declaration was filed without any full description of the property.

Room No. 1 is described only as admeasuring 10’ x 25’ without

mentioning    any   description,      i.e.   boundaries   for   correct

identification of the suit properties. He submits that in the

absence of any proper description of the suit property, the

decree cannot be executed against the obstructionist who is

occupying the ground floor structure, in view of the agreement

executed by the original owners/landlord. He relies upon a copy

of the agreement and the Court Commissioner Report. He

submits that, in the execution proceedings, the Court

Commissioner has filed a report showing that no such room

admeasuring 250 sq. ft was found. He therefore submits that by

ignoring the rights created in favour of the applicant in lieu of



                                2/6
                                               11-CRA-773-2015.docx

the agreement executed in his favour, the decree which is

passed in the absence of the present applicant is sought to be

executed.


4.     He submits that even in the execution, the objection

regarding the description of the property can be raised and the

decree holder has to satisfactorily establish the identity of the

property under execution of the possession decree. He

therefore submits that, in the absence of any satisfactory

evidence of the description of the suit property, the decree

cannot be executed against the present applicant, i.e., the

obstructionist, who has an independent right to the ground-floor

structure.


5.     To support his submissions, learned counsel for the

applicant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of Shafiqur Rehman Khan and Another vs. Smt. Mohammad

Jahan Begum and Others1. Learned counsel for the applicant

therefore submits that the impugned order would warrant

interference of this court.


6.     I have perused the papers of the civil revision application.

The declaratory suit by respondent no.1 was filed on 15 th May

1 (1982) 2 SCC 456

                                3/6
                                               11-CRA-773-2015.docx

2000. The suit for a declaration that he is a monthly tenant of

room no. 1 admeasuring 10’ x 25’ together with the attic was

decreed on 13th September 2006, further directing defendant

no. 2 to 5 to hand over possession of one room on the ground

floor. The appeal bench of the Small Causes Court has referred

to the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, and the interim

order passed on 22nd May 2000. By the interim order, the

original defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were directed to maintain status

quo, and they were restrained from parting with possession of

the suit premises or creating any third-party interest. The

appellate court has therefore held that the argument relied

upon by the obstructionist is based on an agreement executed

in breach of the interim order passed in the suit.


7.    So far as the description of the property is concerned, the

appellate court has discussed the documents on record and the

oral evidence led by the parties. The appeal bench has held

that the execution of the document relied upon by the

obstructionist is incomplete and in breach of the undertaking

given by the defendants in the injunction Notice No. 2379 of

2000. So far as establishing an independent right by the

obstructionist is concerned, the appeal bench held that no



                                4/6
                                               11-CRA-773-2015.docx

satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the

obstructionist was inducted into the suit premises on 23 rd June

2003, as claimed by the obstructionist. In the absence of

establishing any independent right in respect of the suit

premises, the appeal bench has allowed the original plaintiff’s

appeal and made the obstructionist’s notice absolute.


8.    On perusal of the agreement relied upon by the present

applicant, no right of the applicant is established in respect of

the suit premises. The agreement is bereft of any description of

the property or particulars regarding the handing over of

possession. Thus, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence

establishing the right of the obstructionist, the appeal court has

rightly directed removal of the obstruction.


9.    I do not find any jurisdictional error or any other manifest

error in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. In the

absence of any satisfactory evidence in favour of the

obstructionist regarding his independent right, title and interest

in respect of the suit premises, the decision of the Apex Court

relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant would not

be of any assistance to the applicant.


10.   The civil revision application is devoid of any merit.

                                5/6
                                               11-CRA-773-2015.docx

Hence, the civil revision application is dismissed.




                                             [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                                6/6