ANANDI PANDURANG GHOLAPE AND ANRversusBAPU BHAGOJI BUCHADE

                                        {1}                         17-wp-11068-2025

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 11068 OF 2025

                        Anandi Pandurang Gholape And Another
                                        VERSUS
                                  Bapu Bhagoji Buchade
                                  ...
Mr. K.K. Sasavade a/w Mr. Rajavardhan Sasavade, Advocate for
Petitioners
Mr. Swaroop Karade a/w Mr. Harshit, Advocate for Respondent
                                .......

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

                                       DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

ORDER :

1.       By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioners take exception to the order dated

19.07.2025 passed by learned District Judge-2, Kolhapur in Misc. Civil

Appeal No. 102 of 2025, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the

respondent and setting aside the order passed below Exhibit-5 in

Regular Civil Suit No. 482 of 2025.


2.       Respondent/original plaintiff filed suit for injunction. It is the case

of the respondent that property bearing C.T.S. No. 175 area 111.4

Sq.mtr.,           situated   at Varange,   Tal.   Karveer, Dist.    Kolhapur was

Government property and Government had allotted plots to persons

Bhagyawant Punde
                                   {2}                    17-wp-11068-2025

whose properties were situated in flood affected area. Plot No. 91 area

24 ft. x 80 ft. was allotted to father of plaintiff namely Bhagoji Narasu

Buchade on 21.08.1979 by accepting price of that plot. Its possession

was handed over to father of plaintiff as owner by Sub Divisional

officer, Karveer. At the time of City Survey of 1981, it was necessary to

enter area of that plot as 222.80 Sq.mtr. but it was recorded as 111.40

Sq.mtr. incorrectly. In above property, in half portion, plaintiff has

constructed house and half portion was open plot having one small

shed. Said half portion having open plot, shed is suit property.


3.       It is further averred that said property of half portion which was

vacant and having one shed was given to defendants by plaintiff on

rent. However, defendants illegally started construction over said

property and has dug pits. When plaintiff asked defendants not to

construct illegally, they refused. Therefore, plaintiff filed complaint

application to Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, PSI Karveer and filed

suit for grant of permanent injunction. By filing application at Exhibit-

5, plaintiff claimed relief of temporary injunction restraining defendants

from constructing suit property.


4.       Defendants filed written statement and denied averments made

in the plaint. According to them, plaintiff has no right in suit property

and suit is not tenable in present form. Plaintiff cannot claim equitable

Bhagyawant Punde
                                   {3}                    17-wp-11068-2025

relief as he has not come with clean hands. Plaintiff has showed

property as C.T.S. No. 175, area 111.40 Sq.mtr, but after allotment of

plot by Government, there were roads and then City Survey was

prepared. Actual measurements were taken and then city survey

record was prepared in 1981 to which plaintiff never objected.

Defendants are constructing in their property and only to stop their

construction suit is filed.

         It is further contended that plaintiff has executed lease deed for

a period of 999 years dated 25/10/2007 in favour of defendant No.1 in

respect of half portion of C.T.S.No.175 and its area is 55.7 Sq.mtr. of

which boundaries are given in para 5 of written statement. At the

same time possession of said suit property was handed over by

plaintiff to defendant No.1. Moreover plaintiff, his brother, sister and

son executed notarized irrevocable power of attorney in favour of

defendant No.1 at same time. Defendant No.1 is in possession of suit

property on the basis of lease agreement. Though plaintiff agreed to

sell suit property to him, due to technical reasons and as permission

was not received from Government, sale deed was not executed. As

per lease agreement defendant No.1 paid consideration amount of

Rs.90,000/- to plaintiff and all these facts are suppressed by plaintiff.

Though in para No.3 of plaint, suit property is described, plaintiff has

purposefully concealed details of lease agreement and copy of the

Bhagyawant Punde
                                   {4}                    17-wp-11068-2025

same is not filed on record by him. On the basis of lease agreement

and as per its terms, defendants have every right to construct in the

suit property and accordingly they started construction. Defendants

will suffer irreparable loss if their construction is stopped. Plaintiff has

no prima facie case and balance of convenience.


5.       Along with the suit application Exhibit-5 was filed by plaintiff,

which was rejected by the Trial Court. Plaintiff has challenged the same

by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2025, which came to be allowed.

Hence, the present petition.


6.       Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate

for the respondent. Perused the grounds raised in writ petition memo,

annexures thereto and the citations relied upon by learned advocate

for the petitioners.


7.       Record shows that ownership of the suit property of plaintiff is

not disputed. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was given on rent to

defendants and defendants have illegally started constructing in suit

property without obtaining permission of competent authority.


8.       Learned advocate for the petitioners strenuously submits that

the property was given to defendants on rent by plaintiff by executing

lease deed for 999 years and defendants are in possession of the said

Bhagyawant Punde
                                     {5}                         17-wp-11068-2025

property on the basis of said lease deed. According to defendants,

amount of Rs. 90,000/- is also paid by defendants. Along with the

lease       deed   irrevocable   power     of   attorney   was   also   executed.

According to the defendants, these aspects are deliberately suppressed

by the plaintiff in the plaint and therefore plaintiff has failed to make

out prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.


9.       Indisputably, the lease deed is not registered. It is settled legal

position that unregistered agreement cannot prima facie establish

interest of the party in the suit property.


10.      Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on Prakash Sahu vs.

Saulal and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1905 to contend that

unregistered document could be taken into consideration for collateral

purposes. By relying on Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Jitendra

Jagdish Tulsiani and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2074 it is

contended that agreement of lease is in fact a agreement of sale and

title of the document is of no relevance but the purport of the

agreement needs to be taken into consideration.


11.      Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the

documents placed on record, the Appellate Court has taken a possible

view, which this Court is not inclined to interfere with in the extra


Bhagyawant Punde
                             {6}                  17-wp-11068-2025

ordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition being devoid of merit is

dismissed.



                                   (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde