The Marathi language is native to various regions of India. In 2007, there were around 70 million native Marathi speakers. Writing in Marathi requires using a version of the Devanagari script, therefore when it comes to typing, applications that support the Unicode standard are required.
As its name says, FREE English-Marathi Translator is a free tool that allows you to translate any written text from English to Marathi. It's a simple, neat, and handy application. Translating from Marathi to English is also possible, so this handy utility is in fact a nice, bidirectional translator.
FREE English-Marathi Translator also comes with a very simple and straightforward interface. It’s so easy to use that even complete beginners can handle it without any problem.
This tool can also open and translate TXT text files and can import and export the texts to/from the clipboard. In conclusion, if you ever need to quickly translate texts between Marathi and English, this translator represents a good choice to get the job done.
It's an application developed for advanced users and professional translators.
It allows you to translate any text from English to Hindi and vice versa.
Comments (8)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
ORDER BELOW EXH.06 IN REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO.28/2023
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust & Ors. Vs. Velavi
Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
(CNR NO.:MHRT120000712024)
Present application is filed by plaintiffs for temporary
injunction restraining defendant no.1 to 20 or any person acting on
their behalf from obstructing to their peaceful possession over suit
property till decision of the suit.
2. Description of the properties situated at Mouje Velavi
Taluka - Dapoli, District - Ratnagiri :-
Sr.
No.
Name of
place
Survey
No.
Hissa No. Area
H.R.
Assessment
Rs. Pai.
1 Sadyachi
Dhar
66 11 0-53-79
0-02-93
0-56-72
paiki
0-02-89
0.25
2 Sadyachi
Dhar
37 0 0-00-00
0-01-28
0-01-28
0.00
The property comprising of Shriram temple having Velvi
Grampanchayat No.21 bounded by
2 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
towards east : public portion out of Survey No.66/16
towards west : remaining portion out of Survey No.66/11
towards north : remaining portion out of Survey No.66/11
towards south : property of Sakharam Tatkare out of Survey
No.68/02
Hence, the suit property.
3. According to plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 is a registered
trust under Bombay Public Trust Act having registration no.F31053.
Chandrakant Mahadik, Dhondu Chougule and Suresh Tambade has
been authorized by the board as per resolution no.2 dated
10.09.2023 to file suit on behalf of trust. Defendant no.1 is also
one of the trust and defendant no.2 to 15 are trustees of defendant
no.1 trust. The suit property owned by plaintiff trust and
defendant no.1 to 20 did not having any concern with the trust.
The area 'Yadavwadi' situated at Mouje Velavi, Tal. Dapoli, Dist.
Ratnagiri was illegally changed to 'Ramwadi' and in above area
there is suit property and Shriram temple was constructed in above
property in the year 1973 and at that time plaintiffs trust was
unregistered. By taking initiative by plaintiffs, they have
constructed Shriram temple in 1974 and thereafter, idle of Shriram
was installed in the year 1976 and thereafter, usual pooja and other
ritual ceremonies were carried out regularly. After registration of
trust they have purchased suit property from Sudhir Ganpat
Divekar vide registered sale-deed Sr.No.404/2006 and thereby
name of plaintiff trust was entered on the revenue record. They
3 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
have filed change report bearing no.397 and it was granted on
30.05.2007 thereby property was entered on PTR register.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed change report no.67/2009 and it was
granted and thereby properties of trust were entered in PTR
register. Defendant no.6 filed complaint in the office of Assistant
Charity Commissioner and after inquiry complaint was rejected on
13.03.2009. Previously, plaintiffs filed RCS No.27/2008 against
Manohar Damodar Rangale and others for perpetual injunction in
the Court at Dapoli and at that time interim application was given.
However, that application was rejected and thereafter, due to non
appearance of plaintiffs, suit was dismissed in default. During the
period settlement was taken place and thereby affidavit executed
before Notary Public dated 20.03.2012 was given and therefore, till
March 2023, defendant no.1 to 20 did not making any interruption
to the functioning of plaintiff trust. However, in March 2023 they
have filed objection before Police Inspector Dapoli against
celebration of Ramnavami utsav and thereby Tahsildar Dapoli
passed the order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Defendants filed
revision application before Sessions Court Khed bearing no.9/2023
and it is pending. Defendant no.1 is registered trust having
registration no.F45146. Defendant no.2 to 20 by using political
pressure with the help of police harass the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs trust
doing daily pooja-archa and celebrate all festivals including
Ramnavami. They regularly filed statement of income and
expenditure in the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner on
19.01.2024, plaintiffs were doing regular cleaning work of Shriram
4 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
temple and after completion of work, defendant no.16 at night
meet Chandrakant Mahadik and told and threatened him that do
not carried out pooja-archa on the occasion of Ramnavami festival.
Hence, plaintiffs having apprehension that defendant no.1 to 20
will make obstruction in the pooja-archa of Shriram temple and
thereby may obstruct to their peaceful possession over suit
property. Hence, present application is filed.
4. Defendant no.1, 2, 4 to 20 filed say at Exh.58 and
objected the application. According to defendants, plaintiffs and
defendants are residing in the same wadi and initially their wadi
was known by Gosaviwadi and thereafter it was renamed as
Yadavwadi. Shriram temple is situated in above wadi since 1974
and therefore, people from Velavi locality known above wadi as
Ramwadi, Velavi. Several villagers insisted for changing the name
of wadi as Ramwadi and therefore, Velavi Grampanchayat in the
meeting held on 26.04.2005 after considering the application of
villagers and after considering that no one raised any objection, it
was unanimously decided to take decision by majority and
therefore, Grampanchayat Velavi gave their letter dated 30.04.2005
to B.D.O. Dapoli and Tahsildar Dapoli. Tahsildar Dapoli replied the
letter dated 19.07.2005 stating that Grampanchayat Velavi should
take decision at their level. On 07.06.2005 Grampanchayat called
the meeting wherein 148 villagers were present and subject of
change in name of wadi as Ramwadi was proposed before meeting.
116 villagers voted in favour of name change and 32 villagers voted
5 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
against the proposal. Considering all proposal was accepted and
thereby name was changed. RCS No.27/2006 filed in the Court at
Dapoli for perpetual injunction was dismissed. In above suit
plaintiffs filed application for temporary injunction and above
application was decided on merit and application came to be
rejected on 20.04.2009. The temple was renovated in 1975. Above
temple is spiritual place of all Velavi villagers. The assessment
extract Exh.21 clearly discloses name as Shriram mandr Ramwadi
and does not discloses name of Velavi Yadhavwadi Gramastha
Mandal Trust. Even though property out of survey no.66/11 and
survey no.67 was purchased by plaintiff trust, still Shriram temple
is not owned by plaintiff trust. The alleged sale-deed demonstrate
only landed property and it does not transpired that Shriram
temple having property no.21 was also included in the sale-deed.
The documents filed on record by plaintiffs in relation to
registration of trust clearly shows that Shriram temple, property
no.21 is not mentioned in their application. Plaintiffs for their sole
benefit of particular group, wanted to celebrate Ramnavami utsav
and plaintiffs did not wanted to participate defendants in above
utsav. On the contrary, Ramnavami utsav should be celebrated
collectively by all villagers. However, plaintiffs did not agree for
the same. As per plaintiffs, Shriram temple owned by them and
therefore, they taking every steps for not allowing defendants to
celebrate Ramnavami utsav in above temple. On 27.03.2023
Tahsildar Dapoli also passed order thereby directing plaintiffs and
defendants to celebrate Ramnavami utsav without committing any
6 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
breach of law and law and order situation. Accordingly, in the year
2023 defendants celebrated Ramnavami utsav and no any harm
caused to plaintiffs. In the year 2024, plaintiffs filed application
Exh.34 for status-quo and this court passed the order thereby all
villagers are permitted to take part and celebrate utsav without
causing any nuisance to the public and accordingly plaintiffs and
defendants have celebrated Ramnavami Utsav peacefully. As per
Article 25 of Indican Constitution all villagers having right to enter
into temple, carry out pooja-archa, celebrate festivals and plaintiffs
due to their arrogance were obstructing defendants from exercising
their rights. If all festivals were performed by villagers in Shriram
Temple, no harm would be caused to the plaintiffs. On the
contrary, if injunction as sought by plaintiffs is granted, right of
defendants get affected and much irreparable monetary loss would
be caused to them. Hence, application be rejected with costs.
5. Following points arises for my discussion and I have
recorded my finding thereon with the reasons stated thereunder :-
Sr.
No.
Point for Determination Findings
1. Do the plaintiffs prove prima-facie
case ?
…In negative
2. Do the plaintiffs prove balance of
convenience in their favour ?
…In negative
3. Do the plaintiffs prove the irreparable
loss would cause to them if injunction
is not granted ?
…In negative
7 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
4. What Order ? ..As per final order
-REASONSDocuments produced by the plaintiffs:-
6. Documents at Sr.No.1 to 13 along-with list Exh.05,
document at Sr.No.1 at Exh.37, documents at Sr.No.1 and 2 at
Exh.64, 7/12 extract of S.No.67 of village Velavi, Tal. Dapoli, Dist.
Ratnagiri Exh.10, 7/12 extract of S.No.66/11 of village Velavi, Tal.
Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri Exh.11.
Documents produced by the defendants :-
7. Documents at Sr.No.1 and 2 along-with list Exh.40,
document at Sr.No.1 at Exh.52, documents at Sr.No.1 to 4 at
Exh.61.
Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs :-
8. Ld. Counsel submitted that both trusts are registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act and property out of S.No.66/11 and
S.No.67/0 was purchased by plaintiff trust vide registered saledeed and Shriram temple was situated in above property which has
given property no.21. The property was entered on the PTR extract
of plaintiff trust and defendant no.1 public trust did not having any
right or authority to make obstruction in the management of
8 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
plaintiff trust. If application is allowed, no harm would be caused
to the defendants. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss lies in favour of plaintiffs. Hence, Ld. Counsel
submitted that application be allowed.
Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Defendants :-
9. Ld. Counsel submitted that defendant no.1 is also
registered public trust. Defendants are resident of Velavi village
and as per Grampanchayat resolution, name was changed as
Ramwadi. Shriram temple is not the property of plaintiffs trust and
temple is not at all entered on the PTR extract. On previous
occasion also plaintiffs and defendants have celebrated Ramnavami
festival peacefully and no any harm was caused to the plaintiffs.
Assessment extract discloses that name of defendant public trust
was entered on revenue record. In Criminal Revision Application
No.9/2023, Hon'ble District Court had passed the order directing
all the villagers of Velavi Yadavwadi and Ramwadi to participate
and celebrate Ramnavami without causing any nuisance. Whether
Shriram Temple owned by plaintiff trust is a question of trial.
Defendants did not disputing that plaintiff trust purchased landed
property out of S.No.66/11 and S.No.67/0 by registered sale-deed
and Shriram temple was not the property in above sale-deed. Even
PTR extract also does not discloses Shriram temple as property of
plaintiffs trust. Hence, if injunction is granted, defendants will
loose their constitutional right to participate in the festival, to pray
9 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
for the god as per their wish. Therefore, in that situation much
prejudice would be caused to the defendants and much irreparable
loss would be caused to the defendants. Hence, application be
rejected.
AS TO POINT NO.1 :-
10. Admittedly, plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are public
trusts registered under Bombay Public Trust Act. It is case of
plaintiffs that the entire management of Shriram temple is carried
out by plaintiff trust and defendant no.1 trust did not having any
right or authority in relation to property of plaintiffs trust and
despite of that, members of defendant no.1 trust creating
obstruction in the day-to-day functioning of Shriram temple and
therefore, present application came to be filed.
11. On perusal of 7/12 extract of S.No.67 Exh.10, it reveals
that property is standing in the name of Velavi Yadavwadi
Gramastha Mandal Mumbai. On perusal of 7/12 extract of
S.No.66/11 Exh.11, it reveals that land admeasuring 0.02.89 R has
been standing in the name of Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal
Mumbai. As per plaintiffs, Shriram temple is situated on land
comprising of both S.No.67 and S.No.66/11 and above property
was entered on the PTR extract also. As per plaintiffs, they have
purchased above property by registered sale-deed Sr.No.404/2006
dated 28.02.2006. Defendants denied above fact. However, on
perusal of copy of sale-deed which is filed on record at Exh.5/12
10 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
along-with other applications, it reveals that plaintiff trust
purchased property out of S.No.66/11 and S.No.67/0 from Sudhir
Ganpat Divekar via registered sale-deed Sr.No.404/2006. On
perusal of copy of PTR extract Exh.64/2, it reveals that property
out of S.No.66/11 and S.No.67/0 was entered on the PTR extract.
However, it appears that above entry is not confirmed by Ld. A.C.C.
as entry is not signed by Ld. A.C.C. Record further discloses that
above property was entered on PTR extract vide change report
no.397/2007 and later on, mistake regarding description of
property was corrected as per order passed in Misc. Application
No.67/2009 and thereby entry in PTR extract in relation to
immovable property was corrected as per the description given in
the sale-deed dated 28.02.2006. As stated earlier, PTR extract
merely discloses landed property out of S.No.66/11 and S.No.67/0
as property of plaintiffs trust. No doubt, movable property
comprising of palakhi, donation box, samai, etc. were entered on
the PTR extract. However, structure of Shriram temple stating the
exact area of building of Shriram temple is not entered specifically
on the PTR extract of plaintiffs trust. Therefore, unless and until
structure of Shriram temple is entered on the PTR extract, it cannot
become property of plaintiffs trust. On perusal of assessment
extract Exh.61/1, it reveals that Shriram temple Ramwadi Velavi
has given property no.21 comprising of Sabha Mandap. Similarly,
on perusal of assessment extract Exh.61/2, it reveals that property
no.22 comprising of Sabha Mandap admeasuring about 576 Sq.ft.
has been standing in the name of defendant no.1 public trust.
11 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
Therefore, it prima facie appears that defendant no.1 public trust
also constructed Sabha Mandap. On perusal of objects of plaintiff
trust Exh.64/1, it reveals that general objects were incorporated in
the memorandum of association and there is no any specific object
relating to management and functioning of Shriram Temple Velavi.
Similarly, on perusal of objects of defendant no.1 trust Exh.5/7
along-with other applications, it reveals that general objects were
incorporated in the memorandum of association and there is no
any specific object relating to management and functioning of
Shriram Temple Velavi. In short, both objects of plaintiff and
defendant no.1 trust discloses only general objects to be performed
by the trust. On perusal of copy of order in Criminal Revision
Application No.9/2023 Exh.40/2, it reveals that Hon'ble District
Court, Khed directed all the villagers of Velavi Yadavwadi and
Ramwadi to take part and celebrate Ramnavami without causing
any nuisance or disturbance to public peace. On perusal of order
passed below Exh.34 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, it reveals
that all the villagers of Velavi Yadavwadi and Ramwadi to take part
and celebrate Ramnavami without causing any nuisance or
disturbance to public peace. In short, every year the festival of
Ramnavami was performed collectively by the villagers of Velavi
Yadavwadi and Ramwadi and it appears that every time they have
to approach the Court or appropriate authority in order to conduct
festival of Ramnavami. No doubt, property out of S.No.66/11 and
S.No.67/0 is owned by plaintiff trust. However, on perusal of
description of property stated in the application, it prima facie goes
12 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
to show that Shriram temple having property no.21 has been
standing on suit land at Velavi and structure of temple is not at all
entered on the PTR extract. Therefore, prima facie though land
owned by plaintiff trust, in absence of adjudication by the
competent authority, it cannot be assumed that Shriram temple is
exclusively owned by plaintiff trust. Under such circumstances, if
injunction as sought by plaintiffs is granted then it certainly affects
right of defendants to do puja and other religious prayer, to
celebrate and participate in the festival of ram navami in above
public temple and in that case possibility of disturbance to the
public peace cannot be ruled out. Considering all facts together, I
hold that plaintiffs failed to show strong prima-facie case in their
favour. Resultantly, I answer Point No.1 in negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :-
12. The second condition for granting interim injunction is
that the balance of convenience must be in favour of the plaintiffs.
In short, while dealing with interim application, court has to
ascertain that the comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience
which is likely to be caused to plaintiffs by refusing the injunction
will be greater than that which is likely to be caused to defendants
by granting it. As discussed earlier, defendant no.16 to 20 are
resident of Velavi Ramwadi and being resident of Velavi
Grampanchayat, every villager can exercise their right to do poojaarcha, participate in festival in Shriram temple. No doubt, such
right is not absolute and considering the situation of law and order,
13 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
restrictions can be imposed. But, in case in hand, if injunction of
like nature is granted then it will cause to much injustice on
defendants because Shriram temple is situated on the land out of
S.No. 66/2011 and S.No.67/0 and therefore, defendants will not be
able to participate in the Ramnavami festival and conduct their
religious events and then in that circumstance, much prejudice
would be caused to the defendants and therefore, more balance of
convenience lies in favour of defendants. Resultantly, I hold that
plaintiffs prima-facie failed to prove the balance of convenience in
their favour. Hence, I answer point No.2 in negative.
AS TO POINT NO.3 AND 4 :-
13. Prima-facie, it becomes clear that, plaintiffs failed to
show prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour. As
discussed earlier, comparative hardship if injunction as sought is
granted would be more to defendants than plaintiffs because it will
cause much injustice on defendants due to the reason that they will
be debarred from conducting their religious prayer. Considering all
facts, I hold that plaintiffs prima-facie failed to prove irreparable
loss to them if injunction is refused. Hence, I answer point No.3 in
negative and to answer point No.4, I pass the following order :-
14 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
=ORDER=
1) Temporary Inunction application Exh.6 stands
rejected.
2) Parties shall bear their own costs.
Khed. (Gautam S. Diwan.)
Date :10.02.2025 Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Khed.
15 R.C.S.No.8/2024 (Exh.06)
(Velavi Yadavwadi Gramastha Mandal, Trust &
Ors. Vs. Velavi Ramwadi Gramastha Mandal Mumbai & Ors. )
-CERTIFICATEI affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file judgment/order
are same, word to word, as per the original judgment/order.
Name of Stenographer S.K.Inamdar, Stenographer-II
Name of Court Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Khed.
Date of decision/typed 10.02.2025
Judgment/order signed by the
P.O. on
10.02.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on 11.02.2025