Dismissed

Ganpat Shidu Bhargude and Ors. v. Shankar Vithoba Bhargude and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2007SA/625/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal arising from a suit for declaration regarding the legality of a sale deed concerning well water, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal. The court rejected the limitation argument and found no substantial question of law, upholding the findings that documents did not establish the defendants' title.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal and civil application are dismissed.

Ganpat Shidu Bhargude and Ors. Vs Shankar Vithoba Bhargude and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 SECOND APPEAL NO.625 OF 2007
 WITH

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1131 OF 2007

¶5

 Ganpat Shidu Bhargude & Ors. .. Appellants.
 Vs.
 Shankar Vithoba Bhargude & Ors .. Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.Girish Paryani for the
 appellants.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

¶8

DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2007.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶11

 2. The appellants-defendants have challenged the

¶12

 judgments of the courts below by which a suit filed
 by the respondent-plaintiffs for declaration that the
 sale deed dated 22.10.2001 executed by defendant
 nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant nos.5 to 7 in
 respect of a well water is illegal and void and that
 the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the said
 well situated in Gat No.1911. Mr.Apte, learned
 counsel for the appellants assailed the judgments of

¶13

 the courts below on two grounds. Firstly, he
 submitted that the suit was hopelessly barred by
 limitation and on that ground alone the courts below

¶14

:2:

¶15

 ought to have dismissed the suit and secondly, he
 submitted that the documents on record and more
 particularly an application which was jointly made by
 the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 for loan for
 digging the well clearly show that defendant nos.1 to
 3, through whom defendant nos.5 to 7 claim right in
 the well water, and plaintiffs have 1/2 share each in
 the well water, though the well situate in the land
 Gat No.1911, owned by the plaintiffs.

¶16

 3. It appears that in 1989, for the first time
 defendant nos.1 to 3 tried to install electric motor
 on the disputed well which resulted in initiation of
 the revenue proceedings which seem to have had
 concluded sometime in 1999. In November 2001,
 defendant nos.1 to 3 executed the sale deed in
 respect of their share in the suit well to the extent
 of 2 Annas and 8 paise in favour of defendant nos.5
 to 8. It is thereafter, according to the plaintiffs,
 all the defendants started obstructing peaceful
 enjoyment of the suit well. There is nothing on
 record to indicate that during the period between
 1989 and 1999 either defendant nos.1 to 3 or
 defendant nos.5 to 7 were fetching water from the
 disputed well. It is clear from the evidence that
 the defendants started obstructing peaceful enjoyment
 of the plaintiffs of the suit well only after

¶17

:3:

¶18

 November, 2001. In the circumstances the first
 submission of Mr.Apte that the suit is hopelessly

¶19

 barred by the limitation must be rejected.

¶20

 4. Insofar as the second contention is

¶21

 concerned, the courts below have considered the

¶22

 entire evidence on record and have recorded a

¶23

 categoric finding that the documents relied upon by

¶24

 the defendants are not sufficient to establish that

¶25

 they pertain to the well in dispute. The findings of

¶26

 fact recorded by the courts below are entirely based

¶27

 on the evidence on record. No substantial question

¶28

 of law, in my opinion, is either raised or involved
 in the instant appeal. Hence the second appeal is

¶29

 dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is
 disposed of.

¶30

 5. At this stage Mr.Apte, learned counsel for

¶31

 the appellants prayed for stay of this order. The

¶32

 prayer is rejected.

¶33

(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Ganpat Shidu Bhargude and Ors. v. Shankar Vithoba Bhargude and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Shidu Bhargude and Ors. v. Shankar Vithoba Bhargude 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

Gunvantrai Mohanlal Jhonsa and 2 Ors. Vs the Official Liquidaot of M/S. New Reshma Dyeing Pvt. (in Liqn) and 5 Ors.

M/S.Amit International Trading Co. Vs M/S.New Reshma Dyg.Pvt. Ltd.

gunvatrai mohanlal jhonsa and Ors. Vs the offifcial liquidator of new reshma dyeing Pvt. Ltd. (in liqn)

Shri Shyam Arjun Kasakar and Anr. Vs Shri Pradip Shyamrao Patil and Anr.

Jaysing Bhausaheb Darvan Vs Ashok @Subhash Dnyandeo Darvan and Ors.

Janardan Govind Dindorkar (Decd) by Heirs Nirmala Janardan Dindorkar and Ors. Vs Vaman Govind Dindorkar (Decd) by Heirs Raghuvir Waman Dindorkar and Ors.