Dismissed

Shri.Madhu Krishna Dhuri Decd. through L.Rs. 1-A Shri.Bharat Krishna Dhuri and Ors. v. Shri.Prabhakar Shankar Sabanis and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2005SA/825/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Bench held no substantial question of law existed as lower courts correctly found plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive title despite record status.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; Civil Application No. 1373 of 2005 also dismissed.

Shri.Madhu Krishna Dhuri Decd. through L.Rs. 1-A… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 SECOND APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2005

¶4

 1. Shri Madhu Krishna Dhuri
 (since deceased through L.R.s)

¶5

 1A. Shri Bharat Krishna Dhuri & ors. ... Appellants

¶6

V/s

¶7

 1. Shri Prabhakar Shankar Sabnis & ors. ... Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Subhash Y. Dhadge for the appellants.

¶9

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.

¶10

DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2005

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against
 the judgment and order passed by the Addl. District
 Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros, dated 2.3.2005 dismissing the
 appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by
 the Civil Judge, J.D., Kudal, dated 30.4.2001 dismissing
 the plaintiffs’ suit.

¶13

 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
 Perused the record.

¶14

 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and

¶15

¶16

 perpetual injunction against the defendants. The suit
 was filed alleging that the plaintiffs were owner of the
 suit land and for perpetual injunction restraining the
 defendants from selling the suit land. The suit land
 admeasuring 54 Ares is located at village Pinguli, Tal.
 Kudal, Dist. Sindhudurga. Defendants 6 and 8 sold
 their shares to the plaintiffs, thus the plaintiffs were
 owner of the suit land and plaintiffs were in possession
 of the suit land, however, due to the fact that the
 revenue records show names of the defendants, they were
 threatened that the property would be sold and hence the
 suit was filed.

¶17

 Defendants resisted the suit inter-alia submitting that
 plaintiffs were not the owners for suit property and
 alternatively defendant No.3 claimed that defendants
 were in possession of the suit land from 1959 and hence
 become owners by adverse possession.

¶18

 4. The learned Trial Judge adjudicated the dispute on
 merits and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
 had not proved their exclusive ownership and title to
 the suit property and, therefore, plaintiffs were held
 not entitled for consequential relief of perpetual
 injunction. Alternative prayer of the plaintiffs that

¶19

¶20

 they had become owners by adverse possession was also
 rejected and suit came to be dismissed.

¶21

 The appeal was carried to the District Court. The
 learned Addl. District Court Judge, after hearing both
 sides on the basis of available evidence, dismissed the
 appeal. Hence the present appeal.

¶22

 5. At the outset, it may be noted that there is
 absolutely no substantial question of law involved in
 this appeal and both the Courts below are seen to have
 appreciated the factual aspects of the evidence in
 proper perspective. It is quite evident from the record
 that there was previous litigation i.e. R.C.S. No.
 192 of 1900 and in that suit it was decreed that both
 the parties were in common possession of the suit
 property. Since then, the status of the property is not
 proved to be changed. The lower appellate Court has
 rightly observed that when the plaintiffs were claiming
 ownership of the suit land, they were required to show
 that they are presently the owner of the suit property
 and it was not sufficient to show that they were
 co-owner of the suit land for the last 75 years. The
 plaintiffs have absolutely no explanation as to why
 their names were not mutated in the revenue records in

¶23

¶24

 the year 1958-59. Plaintiff No.3 has admitted ownership
 of the defendants in the tenancy proceeding and in view
 of this aspect, the concurrent findings recorded by both
 the Courts below to the effect that plaintiffs have
 failed to prove exclusive ownership title appears to be
 legal and proper and would brook no interference.

¶25

 In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with no order
 as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1373
 of 2005 also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shri.Madhu Krishna Dhuri Decd. through L.Rs. 1-A Shri.Bharat Krishna Dhuri and Ors. v. Shri.Prabhakar Shankar Sabanis and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Madhu Krishna Dhuri Decd. through L.Rs. 1-A Shri.Bharat Krishna Dhuri and Ors. v. Shri.Prabhakar Shankar Sabanis and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madivallappa Mallappa Khyade Vs Shanrappa Mallappa Khyade and Anr.

Dwarkabai Baburao Jagtap and Ors. Vs Gajarabai Anandrao Jagtap and Ors.

Pandharinath Baburao Patil and Anr. Vs Trimbak Baburao Patil

Shri.Madhu Krishna Dhuri Decd. through L.Rs. 1-A Shri.Bharat Krishna Dhuri and Ors. Vs Shri.Prabhakar Shankar Sabanis and Ors.

Shamu Lakhu Raut Vs Maruti Bhagoji Adnaik (Decd.)by Lrs.-Sunil Balasaheb Adnaik and Ors.

Prabhakar Ramchandra Kulthe Vs Dwarkabai Vitthal Pandharpurkar