Second Appeal dismissed summarily. Bench held no substantial question of law arose as the finding against the appellant regarding adverse possession was not perverse.
Second Appeal dismissed summarily.
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
mpt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL ST.NO. 3914 of 2009
Raghunath @ Dinanath H.Churi Decd. His LRs Shri Purshottam R.Churi
.. Appellant
versus
Maharashtra State Government through Collector .. Respondent
Mr.Pradeep Gole for the applicants
Ms.V.S. Mhaispurkar AGP for the respondents 1 and 2.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED :12th October 2009
P.C:-
2
Therefore, the notice was bad in law. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that appellant had failed to prove continuous, uninterrupted and open possession over the suit property as alleged. The lower appellate court confirmed the decision.
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding that the appellant failed to prove 70 years of adverse possession is perverse.
Raghunath @ Dinanath H.Churi Decd. His LRs Shri Purshottam R.Churi
Maharashtra State Government through Collector
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
