KHASHIBAI DADU JAGTAP Vs. SATYAWAN BABAN MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother, who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.261 of 1993 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. In the suit filed by the petitioner amongst other prayers there is a prayer for a declaration that the respondent is not her adopted son. There is also a prayer for injunction including a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. The trial Court on 7th August, 1993 was pleased to direct parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter on notice being served and on hearing the parties the trial Court was pleased to grant an injunction on 30th April, 1994 restraining the respondent from ousting the petitioner from the suit property as also enjoying the fruits of the landed property until disposal of the suit. As a sequel, the Court observed in the form of a direction that the petitioner has a right of cultivation of the landed property.

(2.) INSPITE of the fact that the petitioner has got an injunction, the respondent was interfering with the cultivation of the property by the petitioner. Consequent whereupon, an application was moved by the petitioner to the Civil Court requesting for Police protection. It is this application which has been rejected and consequently this Writ Petition. While rejecting the application for police protection the Court observed that by order below Exh.20 the Court had asserted the right of the petitioner to cultivate the said property and at the same time there is need of the Respondent to manage the property. Thereafter the Court observed that the petitioner and the Respondent shall mutually agree upon which of the agricultural land they shall undertake cultivation and in view of that it refused to grant police protection.

(3.) THE petitioner is a widow. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, who claims to be the adopted son of the petitioner, which the petitioner is denying. Whatever may be the reason, today there is an injunction order in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances if the respondent inspite of the order of the injunction was interfering with the right of the petitioner to cultivate the land, the Court in such circumstances considering the age of the petitioner and the status ought to have assisted the petitioner by granting police protection. The Court by rejecting the same has acted contrary to law and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and consequently the order dated 13th July, 1994 is set aside.