Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition and Remands Injunction Suit for Specific Finding on Possession in Joint Family Property Dispute. Lower Appellate Court's Order Quashed for Non-Application of Mind as It Failed to Record Finding on Physical Possession.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 90
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, original defendant, challenged the judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the lower appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014, which allowed the injunction application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was a simplicitor suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property. The trial court had rejected the injunction application, but the appellate court reversed that decision. The High Court noted that the property appears to be joint family property and that neither the trial court nor the appellate court recorded any finding on the question of possession. The appellate court failed to consider the partition deed which contained recitals about possession. Consequently, the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appellate court's order, and remanded the matter to the Principal District Judge, Amravati, for recording a specific finding on physical possession. The parties were directed to appear before the lower appellate court on 19.12.2016.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Possession - In a suit simplicitor for injunction, the court must record a specific finding on physical possession of the suit property - The appellate court failed to consider the partition deed and did not determine whether plaintiffs or defendant were in possession - Held that the order suffers from non-application of mind and is unsustainable (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lower appellate court's order granting injunction was sustainable without recording a specific finding on physical possession of the suit property.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. Judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the lower appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. Matter remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Amravati, for recording specific finding on the aspect of physical possession. Parties to appear on 19.12.2016.

Law Points

  • Injunction
  • Possession
  • Joint Family Property
  • Remand
  • Non-application of mind
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 98

WRIT PETITION NO. 2026 OF 2016

2016-12-07

R. K. Deshpande

Shri A.A.Choube for Petitioner, Shri Alok Daga for Respondent nos. 1 to 8

Sukhdeo Pandurang Bawankule

Vasant Eknath Bawankule and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit simplicitor for injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over suit property.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (original defendant) sought quashing of appellate court's order granting injunction.

Filing Reason

Lower appellate court allowed injunction without recording finding on possession.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court rejected injunction application; Lower Appellate Court allowed it.

Issues

Whether the lower appellate court's order granting injunction was sustainable without recording a specific finding on physical possession of the suit property.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the appellate court failed to record finding on possession. Respondents supported the appellate court's order.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for injunction, the court must record a specific finding on physical possession of the suit property. Failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

There is no finding recorded by the Courts below on the question of possession. The appellate Court has also failed to record the finding as to whether the plaintiffs are in possession or the defendant. The order impugned suffers from non application of mind to the relevant aspect of the matter.

Procedural History

Trial Court rejected injunction application. Lower Appellate Court allowed it in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014 on 05.10.2015. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2026 of 2016 in High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition and Remands Injunction Suit for Specific Finding on Possession in Joint Family Property Dispute. Lower Appellate Court's Order Quashed for Non-Application of Mind as It Failed to Record Finding on Physical Posse...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Father's Custody of Minor Child in Habeas Corpus Petition, Emphasizing Natural Guardian's Right and Child's Welfare. The court held that the father, as natural guardian, is entitled to custody unless it is against the child's wel...