Second appeal challenging a decree in a suit for possession. The single judge dismissed the appeal, holding the suit was filed within time and maintaining the decree.
Second appeal dismissed; civil application disposed of.
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.738 OF 2007
Along with
Civil Application No.757 of 2007
Shri Kamlakar L Janjirkar, Appellant.
Vs
Shri Dattatraya L Janjirkar
and Anr. Respondents.
Mr S.D.Patil, for the appellant.
Mr Pratapa Patil for respondent no.1.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J.
DATED : 23rd October, 2007
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this appeal, defendant no.1 has challenged
the judgments of the courts below, by which a suit for
possession instituted by respondent-plaintiff has been
decreed. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant,
raised three contentions : firstly, the suit was
barred by limited; secondly, the suit was not
maintainable and thirdly, the trial Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit for want of
pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. It appears that by a consent decree in a suit
between three brothers, viz. appellant-defendant no.1
and the respondent-plaintiff and Sunder, the suit
property was allotted to the share of
2
the plaintiff. The plaintiff, at the relevant
time, was working in Mumbai and after his retirement
when he went back to Murud, he found that room no.3,
the room in dispute, was in possession of defendant
no.2, who was inducted in the said room by defendant
no.1. Hence,he issued notice to the defendants seeking
possession of the said room and immediately thereafter
filed a suit. From perusal of the facts, it is very
clear that the suit was filed within time and both the
courts below have rightly held so. Insofar as other
two points are concerned, they were not raised before
the courts below. I perused the plaint, so also the
judgments of the courts below and, in my opinion, the
contention that the suit was not maintainable, has
absolutely no merit. Similarly, the issue of pecuniary
jurisdiction also has no merit and both the courts
below have rightly decreed the suit on the basis of the
evidence on record. No interference in this second
appeal is called for. Hence, the second appeal is
dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the civil
application stands disposed of.
(D.B.BHOSALE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation.
Shri Kamlakar L Janjirkar
Shri Dattatraya L Janjirkar
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court