Ramchandra Sambhaji Ghule vs Krushnabai Anandrao Gund And Ors (Decease Thr Legal Heirs)

CNR No : HCBM010548802024

WP-3209-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3209 OF 2026

Ramchandra Sambhaji Ghule
Age – 54 years, Occ – Business,
R/at – Flat No. 904, Tara Baug,
Empress Court, Behind Sopan Baug,
Pune – 411 001. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Krushnabai Anandrao Gund
[Since deceased through LRs]
(a) Vasantrao Anandrao Gundpatil
Age – 60 years, Occ – Agriculturist
(b) Jeevan Anandrao Gundpatil
Age – 58 years, Occ – Agriculturist
(c) Pradeep Anandrao Gundpatil
Age – 60 years, Occ – Agriculturist
All R/at – Post Nangaon,
Tal – Daund, Dist – Pune.
(d) Alka Vilas Morde
Age – 62 years, Occ – Household
R/at – Lenyandri Tower
Sec. 19/A, Power House East,
Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.17
17:39:44 +0530
2. Amita Deepak Ghule
3. Revati Vaibhav Shete,
R/o. Mankarwada, Narayan Peth,
Pune.
4. Nanadkumar Nivrutti Ghule,
R/o. Gopalpatti, Deepak Nagar,
Manjari Budruk, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune
5. Shobha Nandkumar Ghule,
SAINATH, PA 1/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
R/o. Gopalpatti, Deepak Nagar,
Manjari Budruk, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune.
6. Sharada Chandrakant Shelke,
R/o. 25 K.E. Ward, Flat No.5/6
Ganraj Apartment, Circuit House Road,
Tarabai Park, Kolhapur.
7. Shivaji Sakharam Ghule
8. Vijayamala Shivaji Ghule
9. Ajay Shivaji Ghule
R/o. Gopalpatti, Deepak Nagar,
Manjari Budruk, Tal. Haweli, Dist. Pune.
10. Ragini Ajay Ghule,
R/o. Gopalpatti, Deepak Nagar,
Manjari Budruk, Tal. Haweli, Dist. Pune.
11. Abhay Shivaji Ghule,
R/o. Bungalow No. 50, Sadhana Society,
Near Akashwani, Pune – Solapur Road,
Hadapsar, Pune.
12. Deepa Samir Shirole (Ghule)
R/o. 883, Wintergreen Society Building,
nd
2 Floor, Bhandarkar Road,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
13. Jayshree Sambhaji Ghule
R/o. S S Ghule Wines,
Pune Solapur Road, Gadital
Hadapsar, Pune.
14. Sanjay Sambhaji Ghule
R/o. S S Ghule Wines,
Pune Solapur Road, Gadital
Hadapsar, Pune.
15. Kiran Pravin Kate,
R/o. S S Ghule Wines,
Pune Solapur Road, Gadital
Hadapsar, Pune.
SAINATH, PA 2/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
16. Mangal Madhukar Kavde,
R/o. S.No. 37, Pushpalaxmi Rose
Nursery, Pune Solapur Road,
Near Manjari Farm, Manjari, Pune.
17. Sushila Umakant Kate,
R/o. S. S. Kate Bungalow,
Near Dapodi Railway Gate,
Dapodi, Pune.
18. Ajit Ramdas Kavde,
R/o. Magarpatta City, Jasmil Society,
A Building, Flat No. 301, Hadapsar,
Pune.
19. Bina Danesh Darwadkar
R/o. C/o. Ajit Ramdas Kavde,
R/o. Magarpatta City, Jasmil Society,
A Building, Flat No. 301, Hadapsar,
Pune.
…Respondents
20. Meena Gulve,
R/o. Magarpatta City, Jasmil Society,
A Building, Flat No. 301, Hadapsar,
Pune.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Prasad A
Kamthe, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Salunke, for Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 15.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, a/w Ms. Vaidehi Deshmukh, for
Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1 (d).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
th
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2026
SAINATH, PA 3/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of a
th
judgment and order dated 15 July, 2024 passed by the learned
District Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 78/2024
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner – the original
st
Defendant No. 14, against an order dated 01 August, 2016
passed by the trial Court on an application for temporary
injunction (Exh. 5) in Regular Civil Suit No. 2129/2012, which
restrained the defendants therein from creating third party
interest in the suit properties and carrying out any construction
thereon, came to be dismissed.
4. The suit properties were ancestral properties. The
deceased Plaintiff – Krishnabai Anandrao Gund, was the
daughter of Sakharam Ghule. After the demise of Sakharam
st
Ghule on 01 February, 1982, the name of the plaintiff came to
be mutated to the record of rights of the suit properties
SAINATH, PA 4/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
alongwith the defendants. However, it transpired that, in the
year 1995, the suit properties were partitioned purportedly
under the provisions of Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 (“the Code, 1966”) before the Tahsildar,
excluding the plaintiff therefrom. The plaintiff thus instituted
the suit seeking partition and separate possession of her share
in the suit properties and the consequential reliefs of injunction.
5. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for
temporary injunction as the defendants were alienating portions
of the suit properties and developing the same to the prejudice
of the rights of the plaintiff.
st
6. By an order dated 01 August, 2016, the learned Civil
Judge was persuaded to allow the application and restrain the
defendants from creating third party interest in the suit
properties and also carrying out any construction thereon.
7. Being aggrieved, the Defendant No.14 – the petitioner
herein, preferred an appeal before the District Court. By the
impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge was
persuaded to dismiss the appeal finding no error in the exercise
of discretion by the trial Court.
SAINATH, PA 5/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
8. Being further aggrieved, the Defendant No.14 has
preferred this Writ Petition.
9. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d), the successors-in-interest of the
plaintiff.
10. I have heard Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, the
learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d).
11. Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner, submitted that, though the character of the suit
properties is not much in dispute, nor the relationship between
the parties is in contest, yet, the Courts below have committed a
grave error in law in granting blanket injunction without
properly appreciating the case of the defendants that there was
a prior partition evidenced by public documents. Thus, even if
the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 (“the Act, 1956”), as amended by the Amendment Act,
2005, are attracted, yet, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 6 of
the Act, 1956, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a share in
SAINATH, PA 6/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
the suit properties as the partition had been effected before the
th
20 day of December, 2004.
12. Reliance was placed by Mr. Anturkar on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
1
Sharma & ors. , wherein the Supreme Court has clarified that,
in exceptional cases, where the plea of oral partition is
supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced
in the same manner as if it had been effected by a decree of a
court, the same may satisfy the rigor of the Explanation to sub-
section (5) of Section 6 of the Act, 1956. Attention of the Court
th
was invited to the purported order of partition dated 25
November, 1985 and the mutation entry which was effected
pursuant thereto.
13. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.
1(a) to 1(d), countered the submissions on behalf of the
petitioner, with equal tenacity. First and foremost, Mr.
Deshmukh submitted that, as the injunction has been in
operation since 2016, at this stage, this Court may not interfere
with the concurrent exercise of discretion by the Courts below.
Second, Mr. Deshmukh would urge, after the demise of
1
(2020) 9 SCC 1
SAINATH, PA 7/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
Sakharam Ghule, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the
record of rights of the suit properties and, surreptitiously, the
purported partition was effected before the Tahsildar without
disclosing the name of the plaintiff as one of the heirs of the
deceased Sakharam Ghule. The plaintiff has assailed the
legality and validity of the said proceedings before the Tahsildar
and the consequent mutation entries. Thirdly, and more
importantly, the conduct of the petitioner completely disentitles
them from claiming any equitable relief as, despite the
injunction order, the defendants have transferred portions of the
suit properties. Attention of the Court was invited to the entries
in the revenue record which indicate that the defendants have
executed instruments and transferred the portions of the suit
properties since the year, 2024.
14. To begin with, it is necessary to note that, in the exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to
interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Courts
below unless such orders suffer from patent illegality, errors of
jurisdiction or are otherwise perverse. The High Court cannot
reappreciate and reweigh the material and take a different view
of the matter than the one taken by the Courts below. In
SAINATH, PA 8/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
substance, the High Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction
in the guise of supervisory jurisdiction. A profitable reference, in
this context, can be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep
2
Kumar Ranibala & anr .
15. The fact that, the injunction has been in operation since
the year, 2016, also significantly bears upon the propriety of
interference with the impugned orders. Ordinarily, this Court
would be loath to unsettle the position which has held the field,
by way of an interim measure, for almost a decade. The
situation is further exacerbated by the fact that, despite the
injunction order, the defendants have transferred portions of the
suit properties with impunity. Mr. Anturkar was candid enough
to concede that, the fact that the portions of the properties have
been transferred despite the restraint order, cannot be disputed.
Mr. Deshmukh was, thus, justified in canvassing the
submission that this conduct of the defendants, by itself,
disentitles the defendants from seeking equitable relief.
16. Nonetheless, even on merits, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by
2
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586
SAINATH, PA 9/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
the Courts below. The fact that, the plaintiff was the daughter of
Sakharam Ghule and, thus, became a coparcener can hardly be
disputed. It is imperative to note that, after the demise of
Sakharam Ghule, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the
record of rights of the suit properties as one of his legal heirs. If
viewed through this prism, the challenge to the purported
partition on the ground that, the name of the plaintiff was not
disclosed as one of the legal heirs of Sakharam Ghule, when the
suit properties were allegedly partitioned under Section 85 of
the Act, 1966 prima facie makes out a strong case. From this
standpoint, the reliance on the decision in the case of Vineeta
Sharma (supra) , does not advance the cause of the petitioner, at
this stage.
17. Moreover, the brazen acts of the defendants in transferring
portions of the suit properties despite the injunction order, tilt
the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, inexorably.
In these circumstances, interference with the impugned orders
would cause irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.
18. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
19. Hence, the following order : -
SAINATH, PA 10/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38

WP-3209-26.DOC
: : O R D E R : :
(i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs.
(ii) Rule discharged.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 11/11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:47:38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)