Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rekha Bothe, challenged an order dated 03-10-2016 passed by the District Judge-3, Washim, dismissing her appeal against an order dated 08-07-2016 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim, which granted a temporary injunction in favor of the respondent, Kamalabai Marge. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction against the petitioner and her minor son concerning agricultural property in Shahapur, Washim, claiming ownership and possession after the death of her husband Ramkrushna Marge. Along with the suit, the respondent applied to sue as a forma pauperis under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC and also sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The petitioner opposed the injunction, claiming she was married to Ramkrushna and that a will deed dated 20-03-2010 was executed in favor of her minor son, and that she was in possession after Ramkrushna's death on 12-05-2015. The trial court found that a marriage certificate from the Gram Panchayat showed the respondent married Ramkrushna in 2002. The court also noted that the crop statements (Perepatrak) for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 contained overwriting and interpolation, and found it surprising that entries were made in the petitioner's name for 2014-2015 before Ramkrushna's death. Consequently, the court disbelieved the petitioner's documents and relied on the respondent's pleadings, marriage certificate, and an affidavit of a neighbor dated 02-07-2016 supporting the respondent's possession. The trial court allowed the temporary injunction, which was upheld by the appellate court. The High Court, in this writ petition, found no perversity or error in the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The trial court granted temporary injunction in favor of the respondent (plaintiff) based on a marriage certificate showing her marriage to the deceased Ramkrushna Marge and an affidavit of a neighbor, while disbelieving the petitioner's crop statements due to overwriting and interpolation. The appellate court upheld the order. Held that the courts below correctly assessed the prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the respondent (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and appellate court correctly granted temporary injunction in favor of the respondent based on marriage certificate and crop statements, and whether the petitioner's appeal against such order was rightly dismissed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the trial court and appellate court granting temporary injunction in favor of the respondent.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- forma pauperis
- Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC
