BABRUVAHAN VYANKURAM CHEBLEversusKANTABAI BABRUWAHAN BASTAPURE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38508


                                                   1                         34.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 8461 OF 2025
                            BABRUVAHAN VYANKURAM CHEBLE
                                              VERSUS
                     KANTABAI BABRUWAHAN BASTAPURE AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
                         Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Yenge Balaji Bapurao
                      Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
                                                  …

                                         CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                         DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026


              PER COURT :

              1.           The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.08.2024,

              passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, at Exhibit 5, rejecting

              the Application of the Petitioner filed in RCS no. 131/2023, which is

              confirmed by the learned District Judge-3, Latur, vide order dated

              29.04.2025, by dismissing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 79/2024,

              filed by the Petitioner.

              2.           It is the contention of the Petitioner that originally the land

              belonging to the father of the Petitioner was partitioned pursuant to the

              compromise deed executed in Appeal no. 847/1962, before the Appellate

              Side of High Court of Bombay. It was agreed that survey 117

              admeasuring 15 acres and 11 Gunthas shall be given in favour of the
                                      2                         34.odt


Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, i.e. wife of the present Petitioner and Respondent

no. 1. After which the land was equally divided between them.

3.           It is submitted that Respondent no. 1 herein has sold 82 R of

land from her share to one Baburao Eknath Bastapure in the year 1981.

This land was purchased by the son of the Petitioner in the year 2001 for

consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/- and since then the Petitioner is in

possession of the said land and is cultivating the said land.

4.           It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner

that obstruction was caused by the Respondents in respect of the 82 R of

land. Therefore, he has filed suit for injunction and declaration. In the

said suit, he has also filed application exhibit 5. In the said Application at

Exhibit 5, he has stated that Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have caused

obstruction in cultivation of his land on 07.06.2023. According to him,

although the land belongs to the Petitioner which is purchased by the son

who is no more, the possession of the Petitioner is being obstructed by

the Respondents by taking advantage of the advanced age of the

Petitioner. The Respondents are denying the ownership as well as

possession and are trying to obstruct the cultivation by the Petitioner.

5.           In response of the application exhibit 5, the Respondents

have filed their reply in which they do not dispute the ownership and

possession of the present Petitioner to the extent of disputed 82 R of land
                                      3                         34.odt


in Gut no. 378.

6.           On this background, when the Application exhibit 5 was

decided by the trial Court, the trial Court has held that since the

ownership and possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property has not

been denied and there is no prima facie material brought on record to

show that there was an obstruction to the possession of the Defendants.

Thus, it is held that trial is required to be conducted for determination of

the question of obstruction, and the Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction.

The Appeal field by the present Petitioner has also been rejected by the

District Judge-3, Latur, vide order 29.04.2025, on the similar grounds.

One additional observation has been made in the order holding that the

Petitioner/Plaintiff have not come before the Court with clean hands as

the relationship between Defendant no. 1 /Kantabai and the family of

Petitioner has been suppressed. The fact of partition and memorandum of

understanding has also been suppressed by the Plaintiff. Thus, Appellate

Court has refused to interfere with the order passed by the authority.

7.           Upon going through the orders passed by the learned Civil

Judge Junior Division, Chakur as well as the learned District Judge-3,

Latur, common thread in both the impugned orders. The Respondent are

not denying the possession and ownership of the present Petitioner, over

the land for which declaration and injunction is sought. The only dispute
                                      4                        34.odt


appears to be that of obstruction and leaned trial Judge has rightly

observed that the obstruction will have to be proved by the parties by

leading evidence. The observations are made by the learned Judge cannot

be faulted with. The Respondents herein have not disputed either the

possession or the ownership of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Petitioner has

failed to make out any prima facie case or granting any inunction in view

of the order passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

8.           I do not find any case for interference being made out by the

Petitioner. Hence, I do not propose to interference with the order, as such,

the Writ petition stands dismissed.

9.           However, the liberty is granted to the Petitioners to lead

evidence regarding the obstruction caused by the Defendants before the

trial Court and obtain appropriate orders. I do not find any error in the

orders passed by both the Courts.

10.          Considering the restricted dispute involved in the matter, the

trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings.




                                      ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )



SPC