SANGITA NARENDRA TAYADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is original defendant no. 5 in the suit, has questioned the validity of the judgment and order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the District Judge, Wardha in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the District Judge allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 5 and issued temporary injunction against the petitioner in respect of part of suit property bearing survey no. 107 (Survey no. 23/4 old) .

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring 0.70 HR out of suit field in a court auction. She has deposited entire auction money and has thus invested her life savings. Learned counsel then submitted that at any rate, the respondent no.3 who is brother of respondent no. 5, has equal share in the suit property and keeping that in mind, the half share which should go to respondent no.5, would be around 0.71 HR. He then argued that since the respondent no.3 failed to pay maintenance amount to his wife, there was order of auction of his estate and the said estate means half share from the aforesaid property. Hence, according to him, no prejudice whatsoever otherwise would be caused to the respondents.