1 34.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8461 OF 2025 BABRUVAHAN VYANKURAM CHEBLE VERSUS KANTABAI BABRUWAHAN BASTAPURE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Yenge Balaji Bapurao Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V. … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.08.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, at Exhibit 5, rejecting the Application of the Petitioner filed in RCS no. 131/2023, which is confirmed by the learned District Judge-3, Latur, vide order dated 29.04.2025, by dismissing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 79/2024, filed by the Petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that originally the land belonging to the father of the Petitioner was partitioned pursuant to the compromise deed executed in Appeal no. 847/1962, before the Appellate Side of High Court of Bombay. It was agreed that survey 117 admeasuring 15 acres and 11 Gunthas shall be given in favour of the 2026:BHC-AUG:38508 2 34.odt Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, i.e. wife of the present Petitioner and Respondent no. 1. After which the land was equally divided between them. 3. It is submitted that Respondent no. 1 herein has sold 82 R of land from her share to one Baburao Eknath Bastapure in the year 1981. This land was purchased by the son of the Petitioner in the year 2001 for consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/- and since then the Petitioner is in possession of the said land and is cultivating the said land. 4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that obstruction was caused by the Respondents in respect of the 82 R of land. Therefore, he has filed suit for injunction and declaration. In the said suit, he has also filed application exhibit 5. In the said Application at Exhibit 5, he has stated that Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have caused obstruction in cultivation of his land on 07.06.2023. According to him, although the land belongs to the Petitioner which is purchased by the son who is no more, the possession of the Petitioner is being obstructed by the Respondents by taking advantage of the advanced age of the Petitioner. The Respondents are denying the ownership as well as possession and are trying to obstruct the cultivation by the Petitioner. 5. In response of the application exhibit 5, the Respondents have filed their reply in which they do not dispute the ownership and possession of the present Petitioner to the extent of disputed 82 R of land 3 34.odt in Gut no. 378. 6. On this background, when the Application exhibit 5 was decided by the trial Court, the trial Court has held that since the ownership and possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property has not been denied and there is no prima facie material brought on record to show that there was an obstruction to the possession of the Defendants. Thus, it is held that trial is required to be conducted for determination of the question of obstruction, and the Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. The Appeal field by the present Petitioner has also been rejected by the District Judge-3, Latur, vide order 29.04.2025, on the similar grounds. One additional observation has been made in the order holding that the Petitioner/Plaintiff have not come before the Court with clean hands as the relationship between Defendant no. 1 /Kantabai and the family of Petitioner has been suppressed. The fact of partition and memorandum of understanding has also been suppressed by the Plaintiff. Thus, Appellate Court has refused to interfere with the order passed by the authority. 7. Upon going through the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Chakur as well as the learned District Judge-3, Latur, common thread in both the impugned orders. The Respondent are not denying the possession and ownership of the present Petitioner, over the land for which declaration and injunction is sought. The only dispute 4 34.odt appears to be that of obstruction and leaned trial Judge has rightly observed that the obstruction will have to be proved by the parties by leading evidence. The observations are made by the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. The Respondents herein have not disputed either the possession or the ownership of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to make out any prima facie case or granting any inunction in view of the order passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 8. I do not find any case for interference being made out by the Petitioner. Hence, I do not propose to interference with the order, as such, the Writ petition stands dismissed. 9. However, the liberty is granted to the Petitioners to lead evidence regarding the obstruction caused by the Defendants before the trial Court and obtain appropriate orders. I do not find any error in the orders passed by both the Courts. 10. Considering the restricted dispute involved in the matter, the trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC