6 ao 976.10.doc 1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.976 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1188 OF 2010 Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.B.Raghuwanshi i/b Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for Appellants. Mr. Madhav Jamdar for Respondent no.10. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th September, 2010. P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 The Appellants before this court are the original Plaintiffs who had filed the Special Civil Suit No. 1900 of 1997 for partition and separate possession in the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division. At the outset it may be stated that the learned counsel for the Respondent no.10 makes a statement that the Plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 4 had filed a pursis before the 6 ao 976.10.doc 2 trial court that they would not press the Application Exhibit 43. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr..Raghuvanshi learned counsel for the Appellants did not press the Appeal to the extent of Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 but argued the matter for the Appellant No.3 i.e. original Plaintiff no.3. 3 The Appellants nos. 1 to 4 are sisters of the Respondent no.1. Their mother and the Respondent no.1 had filed a suit in 1949. That suit for partition and separate possession was decreed. The suit properties came to them in the execution of that decree. Their mother died sometimes in the year 1960, leaving behind four daughters and one son. In 1997 the Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession. At that time, they did not feel it necessary to file any Application for temporary injunction as no occasion had arisen for the same. In 2004 Defendant no. 1 and 10 had issued the public notice showing their intention to develop the property and therefore, the Plaintiffs filed an Application Exhibit 43 restraining the Defendants from making any development pending the suit. The said Application could not be heard and decided for long time mainly because notice of the said Application could not be served on some of the Defendants. The Defendant no.10 thereafter, published notice dated 15th May, 2010 declaring his intention to develop some of the said 6 ao 976.10.doc 3 properties. Then the Application Exhibit 43 was pressed but the trial court refused to grant ad­interim relief on the ground of delays and latches on the part of the Plaintiffs. 4 The learned counsel for the Respondent no.10 pointed out that Respondent/Defendant no.10 had purchased the property bearing Survey No. 1191/2­B ad­measuring 1 H 45.5 R. shown as suit property No.3­C in the plaint, sometimes in the year 1983 from Defendant no.1. Admittedly, the property was purchased as agricultural land. However, later on, the property has come within the Municipal limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and the Defendant no.10 intends to develop the same. 5 In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiffs have share in the suit property by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, because it appear that the Defendant no.1 and their mother had half share each in the property and as the mother died in 1960 leaving behind four daughters and a son, the share of mother would be equally inherited by four daughters and a son and therefore, prima facie it can be assumed that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1/10th share each in whole of the property. The suit is pending for partition and separate possession. If the property is not protected 6 ao 976.10.doc 4 pending the suit, it may cause not only delays in disposal of the suit but also may give rise to multiplicity of litigation, and further complications, which need to be avoided. 6 In view of the above circumstances, in my considered opinion, following directions will meet the ends of justice: a) The trial court shall expedite the hearing of the Special Civil Suit No.1900 of 1997 and dispose of the same as early as possible and in any case by the end of March, 2011. b) The trial court shall not give any adjournment to the parties unless it is absolutely necessary. c) The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties. d) The learned counsel for the Respondent no.10 makes a statement that the Respondent no.10 has started construction and the construction has reached the level of second floor. The Defendant no.10, who is in possession of the suit property shown as 3­C, shall also maintain status quo in respect of that property pending the suit. 6 ao 976.10.doc 5 7 Therefore, the Appeal from Order stands disposed of accordingly. 8 As the Appeal from Order itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 9 Parties shall maintain status quo. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)