1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1376 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1378 OF 2009 Haji Siddique Abdul Hamid Darvesh. ..Petitioner. V/s. Kamaluddin Ebrahim Esmail & ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b. M/s. Khilnani & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.M.J.Virjee for Respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In the fact situation of the present case, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 3. Indeed, the Court below has observed that the Petitioner has been put in possession by one of the co-owner. The expression "co-owner" in the fact situation of the present case is inappropriate. The indisputable facts however are that all the defendants are claiming through one Mr.Ibrahim Ismail 2 being heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased Ibrahim Ismail. The concept of one of the co-owner inducting the third party and creating a valid tenancy has no application to the case on hand. What is relevant to notice is that the Petitioner claims to have been inducted by defendant No.1 one of the joint tenant on 26th August, 2004. There was express prohibitory order operating in relation to the suit premises in the proceedings pending between the defendants and the obstructionist. The Defendant No.1 who is party to the said proceedings however, disregarding the said prohibitory order allegedly parted with possession of the suit premises to the Petitioner. It is well established position that such transaction will have to be treated as void in view of the exposition in the case of Keshrimal Jivji Keshrimal Jivji Keshrimal Jivji Shah & Anr. V/s.Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. reported Shah & Anr. V/s.Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. reported Shah & Anr. V/s.Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 BCR 842. in (2004) 4 BCR 842. in (2004) 4 BCR 842. 4. Besides, the Appellate court has rightly reversed the opinion recorded by the Trial Court that the Defendants cannot take possession of the suit premises on the strength of decree passed in R.A.Suit No.1474 of 1984 not being due process of law. As a matter of fact, that question will have to be addressed in the pending execution proceedings. For, 3 the Petitioner at best is claiming through one of the decree holder in the said suit. In that sense, whether he is entitled to obstruct execution of decree in the said suit is a matter to be considered in the said proceedings and would obviously be an adjudication to fulfil the requirement of due process of law. 5. As aforesaid, taking any view of the matter, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)