Bombay High Court
Asadulla Alias Saber Syed Akbar ... vs Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum Sayed Hakkani ... on 9 December, 2021
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
959.WP.7851.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7855 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
2) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
1/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
2/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8015 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
3/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8016 OF 2021
Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda w/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir,
Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad
4/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
A/P. R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand
(R.A), Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Quilla)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
(Org. Defendants)
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. S.G. Chincholkar
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9689 OF 2021
Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
4) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
5/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momingalli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9690 OF 2021
Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9691 OF 2021
Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
3) Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
7/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9692 OF 2021
Asadulla @ Saber s/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service
R/o. Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A),
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sayyeda Noorjaha Begum
W/o Sayed Hakkani Pasha Quadri
Age : 50 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Maheboobpura, Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
2) Mujahid S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 48 years, Occu: Service,
3) Nuruddin @ Shaker S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 45 years, Occu: Service,
4) Umar S/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age : 35 years, Occu: Agri,
8/16
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
5) Abeda wd/o Syed Akbar Jahagirdar
Age: 75 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o: Mohalla Dargah Syed Chand (R.A), Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
6) Amina w/o Kabir Kazi
Age : 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Pimpri, Tq. Udgir, Dist: Latur.
7) Syeda Zulekha W/o Iftekar Deshmukh
Age : 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o: Kerameri Mandal,
Tq. and Dist: Adilabad, Telangana.
8) Syeda Bilkish w/o Gajaffar Deshmukh
Age : 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
At present R/o. Syed Chand Darga Udgir
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur
9) Syeda Bibi Fatema W/o Shaikh Furkahn
Age : 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Momin Galli, Dharur (Killa)
Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.C. Solshe
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A.P. Quadri h/f. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 09.12.2021
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule in all the Writ Petitions. The Rules are made returnable forthwith. The learned advocates of the respective respondents waive service. At the request of both the sides all these matters are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
2. Though in different capacities same persons are parties to these Writ Petitions and most of the facts are common as they are brothers and 9/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt sisters inter se. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. Further for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, I am referring to them as father, brothers and sisters.
3. The facts which are necessary for decision of these Writ Petitions may be summarized :
(i) The father of the parties by name Akbar Sayed Nuruddin Jahagirdar died in March 2020 leaving behind a widow, four sons and five daughters who are all parties in these proceedings.
(ii) All the four sons claiming to have received some portion of immovable properties owned by the father and alleged to have been gifted to them by way of an oral gift filed four separate suits seeking declaration of their ownership over the respective portions of the property and for perpetual injunction, arraying the father and the other three sons as defendants. The daughters were not the parties to those suits.
(iii) In all the four suits the parties entered into a compromise and the suits were decreed in terms of those compromise before the Lok Adalat in the year 2013. By way of such compromise, the father admitted the fact of gift and consequently ownership and possession of the sons over the respective portions described in those suits.
10/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
(iv) One of the daughters Sayyeda Noorjaha has filed four different suits inter alia challenging the compromise decrees on the ground that those are vitiated by fraud and claimed the decrees to be nullity. She also claimed perpetual injunction restraining the sons from alienating/creating third party interest in the suit properties. By way of separate applications in all the four suits she claimed temporary injunction in terms of the main relief. The trial court rejected her applications for temporary injunction.
(v) Being aggrieved, she challenged these orders by preferring separate Miscellaneous Civil Appeals under Section 104 read with Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellate court allowed these appeals partly. It quashed and set aside the orders of the trial court refusing temporary injunction and directed the respective defendants sons from alienating or creating third party interest in one of the suit properties namely Survey No.9/1 to 9/4 but not in respect of other suit property bearing Survey No.228/1/1.
(vi) Aggrieved by such orders in the appeals, daughter Sayyeda Noorjaha has preferred Writ Petition Nos.7851/2021, 7855/2021, 8015/2021 and 8016/2021 to the extent the injunction is refused in respect of Survey No.228/1/1.
(vii) The four sons have challenged the self same order of the appellate court aggrieved by the limited temporary injunction 11/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt in respect of Survey No.9/1 to 9/4 by preferring separate Writ Petition Nos.9689/2021, 9690/2021, 9691/2021 and 9692/2021.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Barde and Mr. Quadri holding for Mrs. Kulkarni for the daughters Sayyeda Noorjaha who is the plaintiff vehemently submit that the compromise was obtained by practicing fraud. Father was not in his senses. The sons took advantage of his ill health and without impleading the wife and daughters the sons managed to obtain compromise decrees before the Lok Adalat. Though the sons claimed to have received their respective shares by way of an oral gift, there was no evidence about delivery of possession. Those were collusive decrees and were not binding on the daughters. Daughter Sayyeda Noorjaha could get the knowledge only when an attempt was made to give effect to the compromise decrees by way of Mutation Entry No.1682 and 2887 in February 2020. When she contacted father he expressed ignorance about the decrees and flatly denied to have ever gifted any property to the sons. When a proceeding was about to be initiated unfortunately the father died. All these facts and circumstances were overlooked by the two courts below. The sons are bent upon to dispose of the properties. Already some portion of these have been disposed of. Irreparable loss and inconvenience would be caused to daughter Sayyeda Noorjaha who is the plaintiff if the sons are not restrained from creating any third party interest. Though the appellate court conceded to some extent, it illegally refused temporary injunction in respect of the suit property Survey No.228/1/1.
12/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt
5. Per contra, the learned advocate Mr. Solshe for the sons vehemently submits that the suits are not maintainable in as much as the compromise decrees were passed before a Lok Adalat and by virtue of the provisions of Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 the suits challenging the award on the ground of same being obtained by fraud and misrepresentation are not maintainable. He would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharvagi Constructions and Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.; 2018 (1) ALL MR 459 (S.C.).
6. Mr. Solshe would then submit that the compromise decrees were passed in the year 2013 whereas the father was alive till the year 2020. He never raised any objection to the validity of those decrees for a period of 7 years and it is after his demise that plaintiff Sayyeda Noorjaha has now raked up the issues. He would submit that the wife and the other daughters of the father are not raising any dispute. He would further submit that the father has allotted plots of 2 Are portion from the two suit properties to each of these daughters and to that extent they do not have any objection but are raising the objections in respect of the portions of the suit properties allotted to the sons.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. At the out set, it is necessary to note that there is a serious issue as regards maintainability of the suit. The suits challenge the compromise decrees passed by a Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. One need only to refer to the decision of Supreme Court 13/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt in the case of Bharvagi Constructions (supra). Both the courts below does not seem to be alive to such statutory provision and the precedent which goes to the root of the matters.
8. Again, admittedly, these compromise decrees were passed in the year 2013. Admittedly, the father died in the year 2020. During his life time neither he himself nor any of his daughters made any attempt to question the compromise decrees. Rather, today the learned advocate Mr. Quadri tenders across the bar a photocopy of the affidavit purportedly sworn by the deceased father Sayed Akbar Nuruddin Jahagirdar dated 03.10.2018. The contents of these affidavits would clearly indicate that he was fully alive to the passing of the compromise decrees. Not only that he admitted the effect of such compromise decrees. He even gave a consent for mutating the names pursuant to such compromise. In the process he also stated about allotment of 2 Are portion to each of his five daughters from both the suits properties Survey No.9/4 and Survey No.228/1/1.
9. If such is the case, when the father himself was alive to the passing of the compromise decrees and admitted their validity and wanted an effect to be given, this would be an additional feather in the cap of the sons. If really such was the state of affairs, there was no question of one of his daughters now turning up and puting up all the grievance including touching the validity of the compromise decrees.
10. All in all, this circumstance is clearly indicative of the fact that in spite of being alive for seven years after passing of the compromise 14/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt decrees and was having full knowledge the father had never raised any objection.
11. Though a faint attempt is made by the plaintiff Sayyeda Noorjaha to even allege collusion in obtaining the compromise decrees, she does not specifically aver that it was a collusion between the father and the sons.
12. Though for not all the aforementioned reasons, the trial court had considered the nature of the dispute and had rightly exercised the discretion in rejecting the applications for temporary injunction. By no stretch of imagination, the discretion can be said to have been refused to be exercised illegally. There was no perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness.
13. In spite of such state of affairs, without bearing in mind the aforementioned facts and circumstances and even oblivious to the limited scope of causing any interference while hearing an appeal under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code and even without recording any specific reason or ground which entitled him to substitute his own discretion in place of the discretion exercised by the trial court, the learned Judge of the appellate court has partly allowed the appeals and granted temporary injunction in respect of the suit property Survey No.9/1 to 9/4. Without pointing out the perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the trial court, he could not have quashed and set aside the orders and substituted his own discretion in place of the one exercised by the trial court. I, therefore, find no hesitation in concluding that the appellate court has clearly erred in exercising the 15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::
959.WP.7851.21.odt discretion. The observations and the conclusions of the appellate court are not sustainable in law besides being beyond the purview of limited scope of powers vested in it.
14. The Writ Petition Nos.7851/2021, 7855/2021, 8015/2021 and 8016/2021 filed by the original plaintiff Sayyeda Noorjaha are dismissed. The Writ Petition Nos.9689/2021, 9690/2021, 9691/2021 and 9692/2021 filed by the sons defendants are allowed.
15. The judgment and order passed by the appellate court in the Miscellaneous Civil Appeals are quashed and set aside.
16. The Rules are made absolute in the above terms.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 16/16 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:43:06 :::