Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants, challenged an order of injunction passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola on 15th March 2013 in Regular Civil Suit No.352 of 2012, which restrained them from alienating the suit property. The suit property, bearing C.T.S. No.1051 admeasuring 34.30 sq. mtrs. situated at Pahad Galli, Taluka Yeola, Dist. Nashik, was claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs to be originally owned by the Maratha Community. One Dattu Vithoba Hingde was a Panch and leader of the Maratha Community, and his name was mutated to the records of rights in the capacity of Pudhari. After the demise of Vithoba Khandu Hingde on 3rd May 1928, the property was mutated in the name of his son Dattatray in the said capacity. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the suit property and that the defendants had no right to alienate it. The trial court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. The defendants appealed to the learned District Judge-2, Niphad, Dist. Nashik in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.32 of 2013, which was dismissed on 17th June 2015. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court considered whether the trial court and appellate court had erred in granting the injunction. The court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The court noted that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case based on mutation entries and possession, and the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent alienation of the suit property pending trial. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - The court considered whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for injunction based on mutation entries and possession, and whether the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent alienation of the suit property pending trial. Held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in granting an injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of injunction passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola on 15th March 2013 in Regular Civil Suit No.352 of 2012 and the order passed by the learned District Judge-2, Niphad, Dist. Nashik in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.32 of 2013 on 17th June 2015 are upheld.
Law Points
- Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Title Dispute
- Mutation Entries
- Possession
