Appeal against appellate court finding of legal necessity. Single judge held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal was dismissed.
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 APPELLATE SIDE
SECOND APPEAL NO.274 OF 2007
Chandrabhaga Pandurang Bhosale and another Appellants
v/s.
Balwant Rangrao Kakade and others
.. Respondents
Mr.R.S. Kate for the appellants.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2007
P.C.
Counsel for the appellants contends that the trial court has rightly answered the issue regarding legal necessity in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. The appellate court, however, has considered that issue by shifting the onus on the plaintiffs, which is manifestly wrong approach and against the established legal position. The argument seems to be attractive. However, it clearly overlooks that the judgment under appeal will have to be read as a whole.
conclusion as has been reached by the appellate court to infer that there was legal necessity of the family at the relevant time.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in second appeal.
Chandrabhaga Pandurang Bhosale and another
Balwant Rangrao Kakade and others
A.M. KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
