Dismissed

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. v. Shankar Gangaram Surve

Bombay HC30 Oct 2007SA/750/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against decree for possession based on a sale deed. The court rejected the argument that parents' tenancy rights inherited by appellants barred the decree, finding facts relied on record sufficient and no substantial question of law raised.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed. The Civil Application is disposed of. Execution of the decree is stayed for eight weeks.

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. Vs Shankar Gangaram… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2007 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.959 OF 2007

¶6

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore & Ors. ... Appellants.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Mr. Shankar Gangaram Surve & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. K.S. Dewal for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent 1.

¶10

CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J.

¶11

30TH OCTOBER 2007.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

This Second Appeal is directed against concurrent

¶14

. judgments	of	the	Courts	below	by	which	a	suit	file	d by
the	respondent	-	plaintiff	on	the	basis	of	a	sale	deed
dated	24.11.1970	has	been	decreed	.	Mr.		Dewa	l,	learned
counsel	for	the	appellant	s at	the	outs	et	submits		that
one	Govind	Hari,	the	father	of	the	moth	ers	of	the
plaintiff	and	th	e defend	ants	was	the	perm	anent		tenant
in	the s	uit	property.	He	furt	her sub	mits	that	it	is
not	clear	from	the fac	ts of	the	case		whether		Govind

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

Hari	died	in 1948 or thereafter. After the	death	of
Govind	Hari,	the appellants have inheri	ted	tenancy
rights	in	the suit property and, therefore,	in	any
case,	there	cannot be a decree of possess	ion	against
the	defendants.	The suit property is a small	plot	of
land	admeasurin	g 3 & 1/2 ares situated	within	the
municipal	limits	of Ratnagiri town. It appe	ars that	in
respect	of	the very same property, the defe	ndants	had
filed	Regular	Civil Suit No.17 of 1991	against	the
mother	of	the plaintiff claiming to be in	po	ssession
thereof	conten	ding to be a tenant in	the	house
constructed	on	the said plot. The defe	ndants	initially
had	claimed	ownership of the suit property	co	ntending
that	when	the suit property was purchased by	the	sale
deed	dated	27.9.1970, her mother funded	for	the
purchase	and	thereby she also is the owner	of the	suit
property.		Both the courts, however, have	rejected	his
contention.		In my opinion, the findings	recorded	in
respect	thereo	f are entirely based on the e	vidence	on
record.	It	is pertinent to note that in	the	present
suit	the	appellant/defendant had filed	coun	terclaim
claiming	inde	pendent right in the suit property.		The
counterclaim	h	owever, was rejected and in	the	first
appeal,	the	appellants had filed a pursis	giving	up

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

their	right	in	the suit	proper	ty.	It is	thus	clear
that	the	stand	of the	defend	ants is	not	consistent	in
respect	of	the	suit pro	perty.	It	is	against	this
backlog	and	in	view of	the	fact	that	admittedly	the
property	in	dispu	te was		let	out	for	residential
purpose,	in	my	view, all	the	content	ions ur	ged by	Mr.
Dewal,	lea	rned	counsel for	t	he ap	pellant,	based	on the
provisions	of	the	Bombay	Tena	ncy	and	Agricultural	Lands
Act,	have	absolutely	no	merit.		The	concurrent	findings
recorded	by	the	courts b	elow	are	entirely	based	on the
evidence	on		record and	I	find	sufficient	material	on
record	to	sustai	n those		findings.		No	substantial
question	of	law	is raised.		Hence,	Second	Appea	l is

¶19

dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application is disposed

¶20

of.

¶21

The respondent/decree holder shall not execute

¶22

the decree for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶23

(D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. v. Shankar Gangaram Surve

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. v. Shankar Gangaram Surve

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra ( Thro. Collector of Nashik) Vs Smt. Kamalabai Kondaji Awali

Smt. Surekha Rangrao Zende Vs Ramcahndra Nivrutti Zende and Anr.

Rajkumar Anand Godbole Vs Sadashiv Maruti Mhalaskar

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. Vs Shankar Gangaram Surve

Smt. Parvati Shankar Nitore and Ors. Vs Shankar Gangaram Surve

Dada Bandu Tambe (Mali) (Since Deceased,Thr Lr Sarjabai Dada Tambe and Ors. Vs Dattatraya Ramchandra Kulkarni and Ors.