ANIL DHONDU SHINDE Vs. GOVIND JAGNNATH SAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Civil Suit No.657 of 1991 was filed by two brothers, namely, Anil Dhondu Shinde and Kishore Dhondu Shinde against the original owner of the suit property, namely, Govind Jagannath Samant, joined as the defendant No.1. The lessee of the suit property, Laxman Vishnu Parulekar, was joined as the defendant No.2 along with his wife Chhaya Laxman Parulkar as the defendant No.3. It is was for declaration that the defendant No.1 has no right to obstruct the entry of vehicles and disturb the possession of the plaintiff and also for a decree of injunction permanently restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric supply and using the 10 feet road from the suit property.

(2.) Regular Civil suit No.814 of 1991 was filed by the owner of the suit property - Govind Jagannath Samant against Laxman Vishnu Parulekar and Chhaya Laxman Parulekar, joined as the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 respectively in the capacity as lessees of the suit property. Anil Dhondu Shinde and Kishore Dhondu Shinde were joined as the defendant Nos.3 and 4 and a decree for possession of the suit property was claimed against all the defendants on the ground that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sub let the suit property to the defendant Nos.3 and 4 without prior written consent of the plaintiff landlord and have thereby committed breach of the terms and conditions of lease, resulting into the consequences of termination of lease by issuing a notice dated 24 5 1991 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, duly received by the defendants.

(3.) Special Civil Suit No.947 of 1993 was filed by two brothers Anil Dhondu Shinde and Kishore Dhondu Shinde against the owner of the suit property - Govind Jagannath Samant, joined as the defendant No.2 and the lessees Laxman Vishnu Parulekar and Chhaya Laxman Parulekar, joined as the defendant Nos.1 and 3 respectively. It was a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30 11 1990 and declaration dated 24 9 1991, said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs.