High Court
Legal Reasoning
111283.18WPIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.11283 OF 2018 1]Sahayadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Sangamner, for and on behalf of Chairman Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, Age : 59 years, Occ : Doctor, Tambe Hospital R/o. Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2]Prataprao s/o. Jayvantrao More, Age: 74 years, Occ : Agril. R/o. Vadgaon Pan, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3]Balaji s/o. Laxman Kute, Age: 62 years, Occ : Agril., R/o. Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS1]Kashinath s/o. Laxman Dhole (Deceased) 2]Rakhmabai Kashinath Dhole (Deceased) 3]Ramnath Kashinath Dhole (Deceased) 3A.Vilas Ramnath Dhole Age: 36 years, Occ : Business. 3B.Pradip s/o. Ramnath Dhole, Age : 34 years, Occ : Business.
Legal Reasoning
211283.18WPBoth R/o. Near Sahayadri College, Plot No. 371, Pune-Nashik Highway, Sangamner, Tq. SangamnerDist. Ahmednagar. 3C.Sunanda w/o. Shivaji ShindeAge : 30 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. Gaodevi Road, G.R. Patil College, Kalyan, Shilroad, Sonarpada, Dombivali (East), Tal. Kalyan. 3D.Meenabai Ramnath Dhole (Deceased) 4]Meenabai Ramnath Dhole (Deceased). .. RESPONDENTS …Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.V.R.Dhorde,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.V.Y.Bhide, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3A to 3C. …CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Reserved on : 28.03.2024Pronounced on : 09.05.2024 JUDGMENT : 1]By way of present writ petition, the petitionersare challenging the impugned order dated 0307.2018passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangamner belowExh.121 in Regular Darkhast No.492 of 2012. 311283.18WP2]The moot question that arises for considerationby this Court is the interpretation of the decree passed bythe Court in Regular Civil Suit No.747 of 1982 i.e. whetherthe decree is only for the house property admeasuring 16 x20 ft. or for the entire 38 R. land including the houseproperty situated therein. Brief facts leading to filing the present Writ Petition can besummarized as under :3]The petitioners are the decree holder and theoriginal plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit no.747 of 1982. Therespondents are the legal heirs of the original defendantdeceased Kashinath Laxman Dhole. The petitioners arechallenging the order passed by the Civil Court in executionproceedings on the ground that possession warrant is onlyissued to the extent of Municipal House No.371admeasuring 16 x 20 ft. at village Sangamner instead ofgranting possession warrant of entire area of 38 R. alongwith the house property and further order of removal ofadditional illegal construction made by the present 411283.18WPrespondents during pendency of the proceedings before theAppellate Court. 4]The petitioner no.1 is the registered public trustregistered under the provisions of the Bombay Public TrustsAct, 1950. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suitproperty involved in the present matter is SurveyNo.371/1A+1B/1-B2 to the extent of 38 R. and moreparticularly farm house constructed on the said propertyadmeasuring 16 x 20 ft. It is the case of the petitioners thatthe said property was purchased by the present petitioner –society from Sangamner Vibhag Sahakari Kapus Ginningand Pressing Society Ltd. Sangamner by way of registeredsale deed dated 29.01.1974. 5]It is the case of the petitioners that the originaldefendant i.e. deceased Kashinath Dhole had forciblybroken lock of the constructed farm house of 16 x 20 ft. andtrespassed over the said property by taking possession overthe constructed portion in the month of May, 1974 and herefused to vacate the same and did not deliver the 511283.18WPpossession back. Hence, the petitioners filed Regular CivilSuit No.747 of 1982 for recovery of possession of the saidtrespassed portion of 16 x 20 ft. The petitioners specificallyclaim that the petitioners were in possession of the 38 R.along with said constructed portion in pursuance of the saledeed. 6]The suit property is described in the RegularCivil Suit No.747/1982 at para no.1 as under :१) अहमदनगरजि(cid:10)ल्हयातीलसंगमनेरतालुक्यातीलसंगमनेरबुद्रुक शि(cid:26)वारातीलमिमळकतीचेवर्ण नःस.नं.हे.आर.रु. पैसे३७१/१अ+ब१ब२ पैकीउत्तरेकडील०.३८१-१८पुव दक्षि0र्णपक्षि1मउत्तर मालादाड कडे(cid:10)ार्णारा३७१/ १अ+ब१३७१/१अ+ब१/अ३७१/१अ+ब/१ब/२/१ येर्णेप्रमार्णेचतुःजिसमापुव क(cid:10)मिमनीपैकीखालीलवर्ण नाचीघर मिमळकतक्षितचेवर्ण नवरीलमिमळकतीपैकीउत्तरपक्षि1मकोप- यातस्लम वेललाखेटूनदक्षि0र्णेसएकघरकौलारु१फुटx २०फुटीदगडीभिं=तीचे मातीतबांधलेलेयासीचतुःजिसमापुव दक्षि0र्णपक्षि1मउत्तरसव बा(cid:10)ूने 611283.18WP दाव्यातील(cid:10)मिमनयाघरांचीम्यु.क.नं. ३७१आहे. येर्णेप्रमार्णेघरमिमळकत तदंग=ूतवस्तूसह.7]The prayer made in the said suit is as under : ८) वादीचीमिवनंतीकीअ) मिफया दअ(cid:10)Aक. १यातवर्ण नकेलेलयाघराचामालकी हक्कानेकब्(cid:10)ामिमळावा.ब) क. ४मध्येवर्ण नकेलेप्रमार्णेरु.५४०/- प्रक्षितवादीकडूनदेववावेत. क) मिफया ददाखलतारखेपासूनतोकब्(cid:10)ामिमळोपावेतो(cid:10)ागा वापरलयाबददलदरम्यानचेउत्पन्नाचामिह(cid:26)ेबव्हावा. ड) वेळोवेळीयोग्यवन्यायहुकूमव्हावेत.इ) सदरचेदाव्याचाखच वादीसमिमळावा. येर्णेप्रमार्णेमिफया दअ(cid:10)Aअसे.8]The Regular Civil Suit No.747 of 1982 wasdecreed by order dated 17.08.1991 and the trial Courtpassed the following order : ORDERThe suit claim of the plaintiff isdecreed as under :-The defendant are hereby directed todeliver the vacant possession of the municipalhouse No.371 standing on S.No.371/1A+B/1B2 onor before 15.09.1991 failing which, theplaintiff shall be entitled to get thepossession of the suit through the Court. Defendants do pay an amount of Rs.540/-in imp sum as damages for the occupation of thesuit property. An enquiry be made into the manse profitsunder order 20 rule 12 of C.P. Code. 711283.18WPDefendants should pay the costs of thesuit to the plaintiff and bear their own. Decree be drawn accordingly. 9]Thereafter, the respondents – defendants filedRegular Civil Appeal No.148 of 2000 before the AppellateCourt. The Appellate Court, by order dated 02.04.2012,dismissed the said Appeal with costs. While dismissing thesaid Appeal, the Appellate Court observed in para nos.15,16 and 20, as under : 15.….. The evidence of this witness alsomakes it clear that the possession of the suitproperty which is described in plaint para - 1along with disputed house was handed over tothe respondent society.16.The description of the disputed suithouse is given in the sale deed itself. Thatdescription is tallying with the description ofthe disputed suit house given in the plaint.Moreover on behalf of the appellants nothing isbrought on record to show that in fact the areaof the disputed house is more than the areadescribed in the suit. Therefore I do not findany substance in the submission made on behalfof the appellant that the description of thesuit house is not properly given. Besides, thesuit house is described as bearing MunicipalHouse no.371. To my mind this is sufficientdescription to identify the property. ThereforeI have no hesitation to come to the conclusionthat the suit house is properly described in 811283.18WPthe present matter. Accordingly I answer pointno.1.20.Points 7 and 8 : Admittedly since from1974 the appellants are the trespassers in thesuit property as they are unauthorisedlyoccupying the same. Therefore definitely therespondent society was kept away from takingthe benefit of its own property. In suchcircumstances definitely the respondent societywill be entitled for damages. It has claimedjust Rs.15/- p.m. from the appellants by way ofdamagers till filing of the suit which in myopinion is quite proper one. Therefore,definitely the respondent society will beentitled to recover Rs.540/- by way of damages.So also the respondent society will be entitledfor future mesne profits. In order to calculatethe future mesne profits there is no convincingevidence on record to come to the conclusionregarding exact figure. Therefore it isdesirable that separate inquiry is necessary tocalculate the future mesne profits. AccordinglyI answer points 7 and 8.10]Order dated 02.04.2012 passed in Regular CivilAppeal No.148 of 2000 is as under : ORDERAppeal is dismissed with costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Pronounced in open Court. 11]Second Appeal was filed by the defendantagainst the judgment of the Appellate Court and the same 911283.18WPwas also dismissed. Thereafter, the application for executionis filed by the petitioners which is at Exhibit-J. Theproperties described in the said application, which reads asunder : अहमदनगरजि(cid:10)ल्हयातीलसंगमनेरतालुक्यातीलसंगमनेरबुद्रुकशि(cid:26)वारातील मिमळकतीचेवर्ण नःस.नं.हे.आर.रु. पैसेपुव दक्षि0र्णपक्षि1मउत्तर३७१/१अ+ब१ब२पैकीउत्तरेकडील०.३८१.१८ मालादाड कडे(cid:10)ार्णारा३७१/१अ+ब१३७१/१अ+ब१/अ३७१/१अ+ब/१ब/२/१ येर्णेप्रमार्णेचतुःजिसमापुव क(cid:10)मिमनीपैकीखालीलवर्ण नाचीघरमिमळकतक्षितचे वर्ण नवरीलमिमळकतीपैकीउत्तरपक्षि1मकोप- यातस्लमवेललाखेटून दक्षि0र्णेसएकघरकौलारु१फुट/ २०फुटीदगडीभिं=तीचेमातीतबांधलेले यासीचतुःजिसमापुव दक्षि0र्णपक्षि1मउत्तरसव बा(cid:10)ूनेदाव्यातील(cid:10)मिमनया घरांचीम्यु.क.नं. ३७१आहे. येर्णेप्रमार्णेघरमिमळकततदंग=ूतवस्तूसह.12]The Executing Court by impugned order dated03.07.2018 in Regular Darkhast No.495 of 2012 belowExh.121 has passed the following order : ORDER1)The application is allowed.2)Issue possession warrant against judgmentDebtor with respect to Municipal House No. 371admeasuring 16 x 20 feet (situated in SurveyNo.371/1A+B/1B2) at village Sangamner 1011283.18WP13]Against the order of the executing Courtgranting possession of only suit house admeasuring 16 x 20ft., the present writ petition is filed. 14]It is the contention of the petitioners that thetotal area of the suit property is 38 R. and that defendanthad forcibly broken lock of the house situated in the suitproperty and made further construction in the remainingarea of the petitioners. The decree cannot be limited to thehouse and the entire property of 38 R. has to be vacated.The question thus arises for consideration is that whetherthe decree passed in favour of the plaintiff is for the entire38 R. land or only to the extent of house No.371admeasuring 16 x 20 ft. in Survey No.371/1A+1B/1-B2 atvillage Sangamner. 15]It is the contention of the plaintiff that theAppellate Court has observed that the suit property is theentire 38 R. land and as such the decree as confirmed by theappellate Court has to be executed. 1111283.18WP16]The respondent – defendants contend that inWrit Petition No.2524 of 2017 the High Court has observedthat the plaintiff decree holder wants to execute the decreefor additional area surrounding the suit house which only isthe suit property. The apprehension of the defendants isgroundless as in the application for execution, the decreeholder has not mentioned any additional area outside thesuit property for seeking execution of the decree. Secondcontention raised by the respondent - defendants is thatRegular Civil Suit No.689 of 2000 was filed by the sameplaintiff against the same defendants in which it ismentioned that the suit property in Regular Civil SuitNo.747 of 1982 is only the suit house admeasuring 16 x 20ft. area and not the land admeasuring 38 R. wherein thesuit house is situated and thus the petitioners cannot gobeyond the pleadings of suit in Regular Civil Suit No.689/2000. CONSIDERATION 17]Having considered the rival contention, it is tobe noticed at the outset that the plaintiff has also filed 1211283.18WPplaint in Regular Civil Suit No.689 of 2000. Perusal of theplaint in RCS No.689/2000 goes to show that the suitproperty mentioned in this subsequent suit is the entire landadmeasuring 38 R. In plaint, there is clear reference to thealleged trespass in the house situated on that land by thedefendant giving rise to filing of RCS No.747/1982 whereinthe decree is passed, which is sought to be executed. Inpara no.4 of the plaint of RCS No.689/2000, it is observedthat in the year 1994 the defendants have encroached overthe suit land except the house for which decree is alreadypassed. This alleged encroachment has given cause of actionto the plaintiff to file fresh suit in the year 2000. RegularCivil suit No.689/2000 was tried to be withdrawn withliberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on10.03.2008 but the trial Court refused the liberty.Thereafter, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecutionon 14.07.2008. The pleadings in RCS No.689 of 2000 arebinding on the plaintiff and estopes it from claiming thatthe suit property in the present RCS No.747 of 1982 is theentire land admeasuring 38 R. The Executing Court cannot 1311283.18WPgo beyond decree unless it is shown to be nullity. Therespondent - defendants have reiterated their undertakinggiven to the Executing Court on 23.08.2017 for vacation ofthe suit house. 18]Para Nos.3, 9A and 9B of the Regular Civil SuitNo.689 of 2000 reads as under :[३] दावाकलम१मध्येवर्ण(cid:13)नकेलेलीमिमळकतवादीसंस्थेने तितच्याभाऊसाहेबगुंजाळ्पाटीलज्युमिनअरकॉलेजवसहकारमहर्षी( भाउसाहेबसंतुजीथोरातकला, वाणिर्णज्यआणिर्णमिवज्ञान महामिवद्यालयाकरिरतामिदनांक२९-१- १९७४रोजीखरेदीघेतलीव खरेदीखताच्यामिदवशीचदाव्याचीमिमळकत, त्यामधीलझाडझुडूपव तदंगभुतवस्तुसहताब्यातघेतलेलीआहेदाव्याचीमिमळकतहीमुळची संगमनेरमिवभागजिजनिंनगप्रोसेसींगसोसायटी- च्यामालकीचीहोती. दाव्याच्यामिमळकतीचावादीसंस्थेलाताबामिमळालातैव्हादाव्याच्या मिमळकतीतउत्त्तरपतिFमकोप- यात१०फूटx दगड२०फुटलांबी रुंदीचेदगडमातीतबांधलेलेवकौलारूछतअसलेलेघरहोतेवया घरामध्येजिजनींगप्रोसैसींगसोसायटीनेदाव्याच्यामिमळकतीचाताबावादी संस्थेलामिदलात्यावेळीसदरकौलारूघरवॉचमनकडूनखालीकरन मोकळ्याघराचाकब्जावादीसंस्थेलामिदलाहोता, ववादीसंस्थेने सदरच्याघरासकुलूपलावूनठेवलेहोते. मे१९७४मध्येप्रतितवादी नंबर१यानेसदरकॉलारुघराचेकुलूपतोडूनबळजबरीनेव अनातिधकारानेकब्जाकेलावादीसंस्थेचेज्युमिनयरकॉलेजचेत्यावेळचे प्राचाय(cid:13)श्रीफटांगरेयांनीप्रतितवादींनाकब्जाकरण्यासप्रतितबंधकेला असताप्रतितवादींनीत्यांनाधमकीमिदलीम्हर्णूनवादीसंस्थेनेकौलारी घरजागेचाकब्जामिमळण्यासाठीमे. कोटा(cid:13)तरे. मु. नं. ७४७/८२ चादावादाखलकेला. सदरच्यादाव्याचामिदनांक१७-८-१९९१ रोजीमिनकालहोउनवादीसंस्थेचादावामंजुरकेलावप्रतितवादींनी दाव्यातीलघरमिमळकतीचाताबामिदनांक१५-९- १९९१पुव( त्यामधीलतदंगभुतवस्तुसहवादीसस्येलाधावाअसाहुकुमनामाझाला. रे. मु. नंबर७४७/ ८२च्यामिदनांक१७-८- १९९१च्या मिनकालावरप्रतितवादींनीअहमदनगरयेथीलजिजल्हान्यायालयातरेग्युलर जिसव्हिव्हलअमिपलनंबर३८०/ ९१चेदाखलकेलेआहे. संगमनेरयेथे अतितरिरक्तसत्रन्यायालयाचीस्थापनाझालीअसूनसदरचेअमिपल संगमनेरयेथीलअतितरिरक्तसत्रन्यायालयाकडेट्रान्स्फरझालेअसूनते पेंडींगआहे.[9] वादीसंस्थेचीमिवनंती:- 1411283.18WP[अ] दावाकलम१मध्येवर्ण(cid:13)नकेलेल्यामिमळकतीमधीलप्रतितवादीच्या अनातिधकारानेकब्ज्यातअसलेलेघरमिमळकतीच्यादति[र्णबाजुच्या मोकळ्याजागेतप्रतितवादीनीअनातिधकारानेवबेकायदेशीररिरत्यावेलेले ओट्याचेबांधकामकाटूनघ्यावेमाँडैटरीस्वरूपाचाहुकुमदेववावा.[ब] दाव्याच्यामिमळकतीतप्रतितवादींनीअतितक्रमर्णकरुनकोर्णतेही बांधकामकरुनयेअसाप्रतितवादींनामिनरंतरचाताकीदमनाईहुकुमदेववावा.19]The say filed by the defendant nos. 3 to 5 inRegular Civil Suit No.689/2000 to the application towithdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the samecause of action reads as under :म्हर्णर्णे वादीनेना. हायकोटा(cid:13)च्यानकलादाखलकेल्यानाहीत. वादीचाप्र. वादीनामिवनाकारर्ण८वर्षी(cid:13)मे. कोटा(cid:13)तयेण्यासभागपाडले. णिशवायदुसरादावाकाकरावालागतआहेयाचे समिवस्तरकारर्णमिदलेलेनाही. सबबयाचदाव्यातील कारर्णावरूनदुसरादावाकरण्यासवादीसपरवानगीदेवूनये. तसेचवादीचादावामिनकालीमिनघालेसवादीकडूनया प्रतितवादीसखच(cid:13)देण्याचाहुकुमव्हावाहीमिवनंती.ता. १४/७/२००८.20]In the Regular Civil Suit No.689/2000, theplaintiff applied for unconditional leave to withdraw thesaid suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause ofaction and the same was opposed by the defendants thereinand the trial Court has passed the order on 14.07.2008 asunder :ORDERPerused application and say ofdefendant No 3 to 5. Defendant No 1, 2, 6are already ex parte. 1511283.18WPPlaintiff and his advocate absent.After consideration of the suit and defenceof the defendant, permission granted towithdraw the suit unconditionally. 21]From the pleadings of Regular Civil Suit No.689 of 2000, it is clear that the prayer of the plaintiffs in thecivil suit No. 747 of 1982 was only to the extent of thehouse property and thereafter when encroachment wasmade on open property of the defendants, different suitNo.689/2000 was filed and the same was dismissed. 22]It is not possible by this Court to grant decreebeyond the prayer / decree granted by the trial Court andupheld by the Appellate Court. The pleadings of the plaintiffin Regular Civil Suit No.689 of 2000 are also binding uponthe plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed suit for removal ofencroachment on the balance area of the plaintiff-petitioners. In the instant suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.747of 1982, the prayer granted by the trial Court is limited tothe house property and the same has been executed by theExecuting Court. As such, I see no reason to interfere withthe impugned order. Request to grant the execution of 1611283.18WPthe remaining property of the land to the extent of 38 R. isnot lawful as same is not covered within the decree of thetrial Court. Hence, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC