1                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.

5)

ORDER BELOW EXH. 05 IN RCS NO. 25/2017.

The   suit   is   for   partition,   separate   possession   and

perpetual   injunction   in   respect   of   land   gat   no.688   ad
measuring   03­Hectare­93   R   situated   at   village   Hingangaon,
Tal.Kavathe­Mahankal, Dist. Sangli as described in plaint para
1. [Hereinafter 'the suit property], along with declaration that
ale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant
No.3. The plaintiffs have preferred an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2  of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
temporary  injunction  regarding   the   suit   property   against   the
defendant No.1 to 5 as prayed in application.

02­ It   is   the   contention   of   plaintiffs   that   Abalal   was

owner of the suit property. He was died on 1987. The plaintiffs
and   defendant   no.1   to  6   are   children   of  deceased   Abalal   as
mentioned in genealogy in plaint.     After death of Abalal, the
names of plaintiff and defendants were mutated vide mutation
entry no. 2089 on 28.08.1992. As per said mutation, the names
of defendant No.1 to 5 shown in owner ship column and the
names of plaintiff and defendant no.6 in other right column.
There is no partition by metes and bounds between plaintiffs
and   defendants.   However,   defendant   No.1   to   5   in   collusion
with   Tahasildar,   Kavathe­Mahankal   has   got   sanctioned
                                        2                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

mutation   entry   No.   7530   on   the   basis   of   partition   as   per

Section 85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. After the
said mutation, specific area is shown in the name of defendant
No.   1   to   5   and   defendant   No.4   has   executed   sale   deed   in
favour of defendant  No.3  for consideration of Rs.2,85,000/­.
The defendants have not taken consent of this plaintiff for the
said transaction. On the basis of said sale deed mutation entry
No.   7546   was   sanctioned.   Plaintiffs   have   challenged   both
mutation   entries   before   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Miraj.   The
plaintiffs are in common possession of the suit property and
they are having 5/11th share in the suit property. Plaintiffs have
requested partition of their share, at that time defendants have
threatened to sold out suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs
have   constrained   to   file   present   suit.   Lastly,   prayed   that   in
order  to  avoid  multiplicity of  suits,  defendants  be  restrained
from   creating   third   party   interest   over   the   suit   property   till
disposal of the suit. Lastly prayed that application be allowed.

03­ The defendant No.1, 3 to 6  have filed their written
statement   at   Exh.26.   The   defendant   No.2   has   adopted   said
written statement by filing pursis (Exh.32). They have denied
the suit claim in to­to. It is their contention that plaintiffs have
                                        3                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

not  given  correct  genealogy.  The   plaintiffs  have  shown  false

age of defendant No.1 to 6 and have not given true name of
defendant   no.6.   Abalal   was   having   two   wives   namely,
Mehabub and Salima. Plaintiffs have not mentioned this fact in
their plaint. Plaintiffs and defendants are governed by Muslim
Personal   Law.   After   death   of   Abalal,   plaintiffs   have
relinquished   their   right   by   way   of   oral   Hibba   in   front   of
Jainuddin Babulal Mujawar and Shabuddin Abbas Mujawar in
the   year   1988   in   favour   of   defendant   No.1   to   5.   After   Oral
Hibba defendant no.1 to 5 have become absolute owner of the
suit property and they have got effected partition as per section
85 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in front of Tahasildar,
Kavathe­Mahankal.   The   defendant   No.1   to   5   are   cultivating
suit property of their share since last 30 to 40 years without
any obstruction. Plaintiffs have filed present suit only to extract
money   from   defendants   on   the   say   of   other   persons.   The
defendant no.4 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant
No.3   for   purchasing   house   property   for   himself.   There   is
nothing on record to show that defendants are trying to create
third party interest over the suit property. Lastly, prayed for
rejection of application with costs. 

04­ Following points arise for my  determination along

with my findings thereon for the reasons stated herein below :
                                        4                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

Sr. P O I N T S F I N D I N G S

1 Whether the plaintiffs have prima­ …In the 
facie case? negative.

2 Whether   balance   of   convenience …In the 

lies in favour of the plaintiffs ? negative.

3 Whether   the   plaintiffs   will   suffer …In the 

irreparable loss, if the injunction is negative.
refused ?
4 What order ? ...As per final order.

R E A S O N S

AS TO POINT NOS. 1 TO 3 :­

05­ Heard   Learned   advocate   H.A.Pawar   for   the

plaintiffs.   He   has   submitted   that   the   names   of   plaintiffs   are
appeared   in   other   right   column   of   the   suit   property   vide
mutation   entry   no.   2089.   There   is   no   partition   between
plaintiffs and defendants by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs
are   not   party   to   the   alleged   partition   effected   before
Tahasildar,   Kavathe­Mahankal.   Defendant   No.3   and   4   have
made   transaction   on   the   basis   of   alleged   partition.   There   is
every   possibility   to   alienate   remaining   suit   property.   He   has
further submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of suits,
defendants be restrained from creating third party interest till
                                        5                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

disposal of suit by issuing temporary injunction. He has relied
upon   mutation   entry   No.2089,   7/12   extract   of   gat   no.   688
(Exh.5),   copy   of   RTS   Appeal   filed   against   mutation   entry
No.7530,   mutation   entry   No.7530,   7546,     copy   of   order   of
Tahasildar.

06­  On the contrary, learned advocate S.B. Salunkhe for
defendants has submitted that plaintiffs have not filed present
suit with clean hands. Plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned age of
defendant no.1 to 5 and they have not given proper genealogy
and correct name of defendant no.6. He has further submitted
that plaintiffs and defendant No.6 have relinquished their right
by   oral   Hibba   in   favour   of   defendants   in   presence   two
witnesses namely,   Jainuddin Babulal Mujawar and Shabuddin
Abbas Mujawar in the year 1988. Therefore, the plaintiffs have
no  right   in  the   suit   property.   He   has  further   submitted   that
defendant No.4 has executed sale deed for purchasing house
property.   There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   other
defendants   are   creating   third   party   interest   over   the   suit
property. Lastly, prayed that application be rejected with costs.

07­ Thus, having consideration of the above submission,
I   hold   that,   in   order   to   decide   the   present   application,   it   is
                                        6                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

required to be seen whether plaintiffs have made out prima­
facie   case   or   not   ?     In   support   of   their   contentions,   the
plaintiffs have produced mutation entry No.2089, 7/12 extract
of   gat   no.   688   (Exh.5),   copy   of   RTS   Appeal   filed   against
mutation entry No.7530, mutation entry No.7530, 7546,  copy
of order of Tahasildar. On perusal of mutation entry No. 2089
it shows that the names of plaintiffs and defendant No.6 are
appeared   in   other   right   column   of   the   suit   property.   But,
defendants   have   come   with   the   case   that   plaintiffs   and
defendant No.6 have relinquished their right in the year 1988
by way of oral Hibba in presence of two panch witnesses. In
such situation, whether plaintiffs have relinquished their right
in the year 1988 by oral Hibba or not ? this issue is required to
be decided after evidence of both parties. 

08­ At present   the names of defendant No.1 to 5 with

specific   area   are   appeared   on   the   7/12   extract   of   the   suit
property vide mutation entry No. 7530 which is passed on the
basis of order of Tahasildar, Kavathe­Mahankal. Plaintiffs have
challenged   said   mutation   entry   before   Sub­Divisional   officer,
Miraj. The same is pending. Therefore, it would not be proper
to draw conclusion about mutation entry No.7530 at this stage.
At present said mutation entry is in existence and it is prima
                                        7                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

facie binding upon on both parties. So far as mutation entry
No.  7546 is concerned,  the  said  mutation entry is  regarding
sale deed between defendant No.3 and 4. The same was also
challenged   by   plaintiffs   before   Sub­Divisional   officer,   Miraj.
The   plaintiffs   have   challenged   both   mutation   entries   in   the
year 2015. But the present suit is filed in the year 2017. There
is   nothing   on     record   to   show   that   defendants   are   creating
third party interest after mutation entry No.7546 over the suit
property. The plaintiffs have not filed any public notice or any
document  to show  prima facie  that defendants are  trying to
create third party interest over the suit property. The conduct
of  the   plaintiffs,   shows  that   they   have   not   filed   present  suit
immediately after death of Abalal, or passing of mutation entry
No. 7530. This fact cast doubt about the case of plaintiffs. They
have not filed present suit with clean hands. In such situation,
plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are having prima facie
case in their favour.

09­ From the available material on record, at this stage,
I am of the opinion that the rights and interest of the plaintiffs
is adequately protected by Sec.52 of the T.P. Act.

10­ Considering   above   discussion,   when   the   plaintiffs

are having no prima facie case then the question of balance of
                                        8                 R.C.S.No.25/2017 (Exh.5)

convenience   and   irreparable   loss   does   not   arise.   Hence,   I

answer   point   no.   1   to   3   in   the   negative   and   pass   following
order in answer to point no.4.

ORDER

1. Application (Exh.5) stands rejected.
2. Costs in the main cause. 

               
Date  : 21­01­2019                      [Manoj C. Nepte]
                                        Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Kavathe­Mahankal.                                 Kavthemahankal.