Bombay High Court
ATMARAM GANPATI HULWAN AND ORS.versusNIVAS BANDU HULWAN AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that the respondents have exclusive possession of the suit land and the petitioners failed to establish any right to possession or joint ownership, thus the injunction in favour of the respondents stands and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of Ganpati Hulwan, claimed co‑ownership of a 42‑R land parcel (Gat No. 2067) purchased jointly with the respondents' father in 1986 and alleged that a 2004 family partition allotted them the western half. The respondents contended that Ganpati never paid his share, that the land remained in their exclusive possession, and that earlier suits (R.C.S. No. 166 of 1990) and injunction applications were dismissed, leaving only the respondents' name on the record. The lower appellate court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from disturbing the respondents' possession, which the petitioners challenged by filing the present writ petition. The High Court examined the revenue records, the statement of Ganpati before the revenue authority, and documentary evidence such as sugarcane tonnage reports, finding that the respondents had actual and exclusive possession and that the petitioners' claim of joint ownership was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for relief and dismissed the writ petition, while continuing the suspension of the earlier injunction for a limited period. The order clarifies that no further equitable protection is afforded to either party after the suspension expires.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners, as alleged co‑owners, are entitled to an injunction restraining the respondents from possession of the entire suit land.
- Whether the respondents have established exclusive possession sufficient to justify the injunction granted by the appellate court.
- Whether the petitioners' claim of joint ownership and a 2004 partition is legally sustainable.
- Whether the earlier injunction and related proceedings were barred by limitation or procedural defects.
Subjects
- land dispute
- injunction
- possession
- joint ownership
- temporary injunction
- civil writ petition
- limitation
Judgment
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11402 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by 1. Atmaram Ganpati Hulwan
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Date:
JAGTAP 2026.08.29 2. Pandurang Ganpati Hulwan
13:57:59
+0530
3. Abaso Ganpati Hulwan (deceased) Through
LRs. 3A. Kiran Abaso Hulwan
All R/at Vadgaon Haveli, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara. … Petitioners
Vs.
1. Nivas Bandu Hulwan
2. Shivaji Bandu Hulwan
Both R/at Vadgaon Haveli, Tal. Karad, Dist.
… Respondents
Satara.
………….
Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil for the Petitioners
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad a/w Samrat Hajare, Suraj Bhosale for the
Respondents
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally with their consent.
2. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.08.2025 passed
by the learned District Judge-1, Karad in Misc. Civil Application No. 52 of
2024 granting temporary injunction, the petitioners who are the original
defendants have preferred this writ petition. The respondents have filed
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
R.C.S. No.630 of 2020 for declaration and injunction against the
petitioners.
3. It is claimed by the petitioners that suit land bearing Gat No. 2067
measuring 42 R was purchased by their father and father of the
respondents who were siblings, vide Sale Deed dated 05.09.1986 from
one Dhondi Sadu Jagtap. They are the co-owners and in possession of
half of Western portion of the suit land. It is further contended that in
the year 2004, there was amicable measurement and partition in the
family and Western portion share was allotted to them.
4. The suit is being contested by the respondents. Though the land
was purchased jointly, Ganpati, father of the petitioners’ failed to pay his
share of consideration. Entire land remained in possession of the
respondents. The respondents’ father developed the land and cultivated
sugarcane in it. It is further contended that R.C.S. No. 166 of 1990 was
filed by the petitioners’ father for injunction. The application for
temporary injunction was rejected and the suit was dismissed. Only the
name of petitioners remained in the record of the suit land.
5. The respondents’ Application at Exh.31 for temporary injunction
was rejected on 23.10.2024. Being aggrieved, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 52
of 2024 was filed by them. By impugned judgment, Appeal was allowed
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
and order of injunction was passed in favour of the respondents
restraining the petitioners from disturbing the peaceful possession of the
respondents on the entire suit land.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Sale Deed as
well as Revenue Record, father’s name Ganpati was mentioned and
petitioners were the co-owners. Their possession was joint and injunction
against the co-owners is unsustainable. It is further submitted that in the
year 2004, they are allotted Western half portion of the suit land. It is
submitted that suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and relief of
declaration cannot be granted. The Appellate Court is stated to have
committed perversity in granting injunction.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Gaikwad
submits that trial Court did not take into account prayers and the
progress of R.C.S. No. 166 of 1990 as well as statement of Ganpati before
the Revenue Authority admitting the possession of the respondents. The
vital aspect has been taken into account by the lower Appellate Court. It
is further submitted that the tonnage report of the sugarcane factory and
the sugar bills would indicate possession of the respondents. It is
submitted that the claim that petitioners are in possession of Western half
portion of the suit land is totally unfounded.
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the trial Court while
rejecting Application Exh.31 preferred by the respondents did not take
into account vital aspect of the matter pertaining to the orders passed in
R.C.S. No. 166 of 1990 and the reliefs claimed therein. The categorical
statement of the petitioners’ father Ganpati before the Revenue Authority
is totally overlooked by the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court at
sufficient length dealt with this aspect of the matter in reversing the
order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court only considered the
Revenue record and averments of the Sale Deed to hold that suit land is
jointly owned and possessed by both the parties. The trial Court ex facie
committed grave error of jurisdiction, which is rightly rectified by the
Appellate Court.
9. I have gone through the amended plaint of R.C.S. No. 166 of 1990
which was filed by Ganpati for injunction initially. Application Exh.5 was
filed for temporary injunction claiming that the petitioners’ predecessor
was in possession of Western side half portion of the suit land.
Application Exh.5 was rejected which is further confirmed in Misc.Civil
Appeal No. 41 of 2019 vide judgment dated 16.04.1991. It was not
carried further. The plaint was amended seeking additional relief of
possession of Western side half portion of the suit land. Considering the
amended prayer, it is evident that the petitioners were not in possession
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
of the part of the suit land. The suit was not prosecuted diligently and it
came to be abated vide order dated 11.09.1998. The Appellate Court has
rightly held that the petitioners were not in possession of the Western
half portion of the suit land.
10. The lower Appellate Court has also elaborately dealt with the
statement of Ganpati made before the Revenue Authority which amounts
to admission of possession of the respondents over entire suit land. The
claim of the petitioners that there was settlement in the year 2004 and
Western half portion of the suit land was allotted to them is
uncorroborated. The Appellate Court has rightly recorded the findings
against the petitioners.
11. My attention is adverted to the tonnage report of the sugar factory
which records name of respondent no.1 against the suit land. Since
2016-2017 upto 2018-2019, various sugarcane purchase bills were issued
by the sugar factory. There is considerable documentary evidence to
indicate that the respondents actually cultivated the suit land. The
Appellate Court is justified in granting injunction on the basis of prima
facie case, possession and balance of convenience in favour of the
respondents.
12. The respondents are found to be in possession of the suit land since
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
its purchase exclusively. Though Sale Deed records name of the
petitioners’ father, the possession is with the respondents. The exclusive
possession of the respondents needs to be protected. This Court has
even reservations for the claim of joint ownership. Its a matter of
objective scrutiny before the trial Court. The objections of the
petitioners regarding limitation and maintainability of the suit can very
well be gone into during the course of trial.
13. I find that no case is made out by the petitioners. The Writ Petition
is devoid of any substance. Hence, it is dismissed.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
14. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays for continuation of interim relief for six weeks so as to
enable the petitioners to approach the Apex Court. It is contended that
after the judgment, its effect was suspended vide order dated 04.09.2025
which is in operation till today also.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite decision in
favour of the respondents by the lower Appellate Court, its execution is
suspended. It is further submitted that the disadvantage is likely to be
taken due to the continuation of the protection.
Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 7
89-WP-11402-2025==.doc
16. The judgment and order passed in M.C.A. No. 52 of 2024 was
under suspension vide order dated 04.09.2025, which is still in operation.
I deem it appropriate to continue the order of suspension for a period of
four (04) weeks. It shall stand vacated without reference to the court
after expiration of the period. It is made clear that continuation of the
protection in favour of the petitioners after the impugned judgment and
order, shall not create any equities in favour of either party.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 7
Checking your session…