Second appeal dismissed in limine for lack of substantial question of law, as lower courts made findings of fact regarding possession and injunction. No points of law involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 1293 O 2004
Sarjerao Dnyanu Ramoshi (Chavan) ..Appellants.
since deceased through his legal heirs
1A. Smt. Malan Sarjerao Chavan & Ors.
Versus
Shivaji Shankar Patil & Ors. ..Respondents.
---
Mr. V.Talkute & V. M. Mali for the Appellants.
-----
CORAM : S. R. SATHE, J .
DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2006.
P.C.:
. Heard, the learned Advocate for the Appellants.
. From the perusal of the judgment of both the
courts below, it is very clear that both the courts
below, after considering the entire evidence, have given
a finding of fact that on the date of the suit, the
plaintiff was in possession of the property and as such
injunction has been issued against the defendants. So,
there is, in fact, no question of law involved in the
present matter much less the substantial question of
Law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
13.01.2006 (S.R.SATHE,J.)
-: 2 :-
Sarjerao Dnyanu Ramoshi (Chavan)
Shivaji Shankar Patil
S. R. Sathe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court