The Bench in a second appeal regarding land title dismissed the appeal as there were no substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on prior partition were accepted. The surviving civil application was disposed of accordingly.
Second appeal dismissed; civil application disposed of accordingly.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
Second Appeal no. 1500 of 2005
with
Civil Application no.2133 of 2005.
Devram Laxman Bagul ..Appellant
vs.
Smt.Sitabai Dada Bagul
(deceased) and others ..Respondents
Smt.Namita Hemrajani for appellant.
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J
5th September,2007
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2. Perused the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the Courts below to the effect that
during the life time of the predecessor in title of
the present appellant, a partition had taken place
and the lands were being cultivated independently.
The lands bearing Old Survey nos.88 and 89/1 have
come to the share of the predecessor in title of
the appellant/original plaintiff and that is
evidenced by 7/12 extracts (Exhibits 40, 41 and
43). It is clear from the same that even the
present appellant who claim through their
predecessor Mauru have sold survey no.89/1 to one
Pandu Diva Raut on 8th May, 1953. The Courts were
right in concluding that all this was not possible
unless partition had taken place and lands were
belonging to the predecessor in title so also other
brothers claiming through the common ancestral
Chima. In this view of the matter thesuit lands
have also held to be the ownership of the
respondent/defendant.
3. These concurrent findings of fact which are
based upon oral and documentary evidence. There is
no substantial questions of law involved. Hence,
second appeal is dismissed.
4. In view of dismissal of the second appeal,
civil application does not survive and is disposed
of accordingly.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding prior partition attract substantial question of law warranting second appeal interference.
Devram Laxman Bagul
Smt. Sitabai Dada Bagul
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court