Case Note & Summary
The matter pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Satara, in a miscellaneous civil appeal. The underlying dispute involved a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the petitioner and others, claiming an undivided share in ancestral joint family properties. The suit lands, admeasuring 5 H 90 R and located at Mauje Sangavi, Tal Phaltan, Dist. Satara, were alleged to have been purchased by the common ancestor Tukaram Rawaji Wagh in the name of his elder son Balu under two sale deeds dated 11 February 1953. Subsequently, Balu leased out the lands to Phaltan Sugar Works Limited for 25 years under a registered lease deed dated 22 March 1955. After the demise of Balu and his son Tatyasaheb, revenue mutations were effected to reflect the shares of the descendants of Tukaram’s two sons, Gopal and Balu. The plaintiffs, being the children of Gopal through his second wife Shantabai, along with the successors of their siblings, claimed a ½ undivided interest in the suit lands. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and cultivation of a 3-acre portion of the suit lands. The trial court (Civil Judge, Phaltan) dismissed the application on 23 December 2021. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2022 before the District Judge, Satara, who allowed the appeal on 13 April 2022 and granted the injunctive relief. The petitioner, being a defendant in the suit, invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, challenging the appellate order. The background facts indicate a family arrangement in 1962 where Tatyasaheb applied to mutate the name of Madhav (father of the petitioner) to a ½ share, resulting in Mutation Entry No.2213. A subsequent amendment to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 in 2012 led to a claim by Madhav for restoration of land to erstwhile holders, where the plaintiffs objected and the Committee directed the parties to seek adjudication from the civil court. The matter was heard finally by consent. The court reserved judgment on 5 March 2025 and pronounced it on 9 June 2025.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 2023
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 19
Writ Petition No.5429 of 2023
Mr. Surel Shah, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vrushali Maindad, Ms. Simran Raut, Mr. Kunal Rathod for Petitioner; Mr. Mayur Mohite for Respondent No.1.
Pandurang Gopal Wagh and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging appellate order granting temporary injunction in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (defendant in suit) sought quashing of the appellate order that granted injunction restraining defendants from causing obstruction to possession and cultivation of 3 acres of suit land.
Filing Reason
The District Judge set aside the trial court's refusal of injunction and granted restraint on possession pending suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Civil Judge, Phaltan) dismissed application for temporary injunction (Exh. 23) in RCS No.16 of 2021 on 23 December 2021. District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2022 allowed the appeal and granted injunction on 13 April 2022.
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 13 April 2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, came to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Phaltan on an application for temporary injunction (Exh. 23) in RCS No.16 of 2021, and thereby restraining the Defendants from causing obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs of the land admeasuring 3 acres out of the suit lands described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, till the final disposal of the suit.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed RCS No.16 of 2021 for partition and separate possession. An application for temporary injunction (Exh. 23) was moved. The Civil Judge, Phaltan dismissed the application on 23 December 2021. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2022, who allowed the appeal on 13 April 2022 and granted injunction. The petitioner, a defendant in the suit, filed the present writ petition challenging the appellate order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961:
