Bombay High Court

VAISHALI NITIN ASHTEKAR AND ANRversusRAMESH ANAND SATPUTE AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that there is no ground to interfere with the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, who purchased a suit land from respondent No.2 in December 2022, challenged an injunction granted by lower courts that restrained them based on concurrent findings of fact that possession lay with the respondents. They argued that they held valid title and that the courts erred in jurisdiction by not requiring a declaration of title. The respondents contended that possession remained with them and that a separate partition suit was pending, justifying the injunction. The High Court examined the documentary evidence and found that while the petitioners' title may be prima facie valid, the lower courts' findings on possession were supported by evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the findings and dismissed the writ petition, directing the trial court to expedite the pending suit.

Issues considered

Whether the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact granting an injunction can be set aside on the ground of the petitioners' alleged title to the suit land.
Whether a writ petition seeking relief can be entertained without a declaration of title when possession is in dispute.
Whether the pending partition suit affects the maintainability of the injunction and the writ petition.

Subjects

injunction
title
possession
concurrent findings of fact
writ petition
property law
partition suit
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                          101 WP 16090 OF 2024.odt

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

                   101 WRIT PETITION NO. 16090 OF 2024

                     VAISHALI NITIN ASHTEKAR AND ANR
                                     VERSUS
                     RAMESH ANAND SATPUTE AND ORS
                                        ...
          Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tejas Deshmukh (through V.C.)
         Advocate for Respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Ashok B. Tajane
     Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad (through V.C.)
                                        ...
                       CORAM                 : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                       DATE                : 27.08.2026

PER COURT :

         Heard both sides.

2.      The petition is directed against the concurrent findings of facts in
clamping injunction against the petitioners, who are original defendant nos.
1 and 2.

3.      The petitioners are the purchasers of the suit land from respondent
no. 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 06.12.2022. Respondent no. 2 had
purchased the suit land on 08.04.2010. It is contended by the petitioners
that they and their vendor had valid title and therefore both the courts
committed error of jurisdiction in granting injunction.       My attention is
adverted to recitals of the registered instrument to show that respondent no.
2 was the absolute owner and possession was also handed over to her, who
in turn handed over possession to the petitioners. It is further contended
that in the absence of any relief of declaration of title, mere challenge to the
sale-deed and prayer of injunction would not help respondent no. 1. It is
submitted that this aspect of the matter is overlooked by the Courts below.

4.      The submissions are repelled by advocate Mr. Tajane stating that there


                                                                              1/2
                                                         101 WP 16090 OF 2024.odt

are concurrent findings of facts. It is contended that possession is with
respondent no. 1. It is further contended that one of the parties has filed
independent suit for partition in respect of present suit land as well as other
properties, which is sub judice.

5.      I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Both courts
below have recorded concurrent findings of facts recording possession of the
suit land with the respondents. I do not find any perversity or illegality in
the findings. A plausible view has been taken, which is supported by the
documentary evidence.

6.      Prima facie, respondent no. 2 had purchased the suit land on
08.04.2010, which can be said to be her self acquired property. She sold the
property to the petitioners on 06.12.2022. Prima facie, title vests with the
petitioners. However, such is not a case with the possession of the suit land.
The submission as to whether such a suit without claiming any declaration
regarding title would be tenable or not, needs to be gone into during the
course of trial. The factum of possession, which is predominantly weighed
on the Courts below, which is rightly so.

7.      I find that no case is made out to cause any interference in the
concurrent findings of facts. The Writ Petition is disposed of with request to
the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. It is clarified that if the
petitioners apprehend creation of any third party interest, it would be open
for them to take recourse of law.

8.      Needless to state that the findings recorded above are prima facie in
nature.



                                       ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-




                                                                             2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…