Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rajaninath Shrikant Shirodkar and Smt. Nandini Rajaninath Shirodkar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Panaji, sitting at Ponda, which dismissed their appeal and upheld the order dated 16.03.2017 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ponda, dismissing their application for injunction against the respondent, Shree Kamakshi Saunsthan. The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of property bearing survey no.526/1 admeasuring 9200 square metres, inherited from Nanu Pandharinath Shirodkar through inventory proceedings of 1964. They argued that the survey records showed reference to the house in the other rights column in the name of Shrimati Shirodkar, and the property was inscribed under no.11886 in the name of Pandharinath S. Gan. The respondents contended that the inventory proceedings were not a document of title and that the adoption deed pursuant to which the petitioner was taken in adoption was not registered. The trial court held that the suit property was not identified and that the inventory proceeding was not a document of title. The appellate court reiterated these findings. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below, as the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The court noted that the inventory proceedings do not confer title and the adoption deed was unregistered. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Inventory Proceedings as Title - The petitioners claimed ownership based on inheritance through inventory proceedings of 1964, but the court held that inventory proceedings are not a document of title and do not establish ownership without registered adoption deed. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the suit property was not identified and the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for injunction. (Paras 1-3) B) Evidence - Adoption Deed - Registration - The petitioners relied on an unregistered adoption deed to claim title, but the court noted that the deed was not registered and thus could not confer valid title. The respondents' expert report contradicted the petitioners' claim. (Para 2) C) Property Law - Identification of Property - Burden of Proof - The petitioners failed to identify the suit property with certainty, as the survey records did not show their name in the occupants column, and the boundaries were disputed. The burden to prove title and possession was on the petitioners, which they failed to discharge. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case for grant of injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit property, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing the injunction application.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the courts below dismissing the injunction application.
Law Points
- Inventory proceedings are not a document of title
- Adoption deed must be registered to confer title
- Prima facie case for injunction requires clear title and possession
- Appellate court's concurrent findings not interfered with unless perverse
