Second appeal dismissed summarily. The appeal seeks injunction regarding agricultural land. Courts below denied perpetual injunction as period of enjoyment expired and no money decree prayer existed in the suit.
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. 609 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2008
Babaso Abdul Naikwade ........Appellant
versus
Ilahi Mehboob Mokashi & anr......... Respondents.
Mr. S.M. Kamble adv. for the Appellant None for the respondents
CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2009.
P.C.:
2
owner of the land and there were other co-owners whose ownership and possession has been recorded. The defendant no.2 appears to be a minor on the date of executing the agreement and it has been so held by the courts below. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to submit that the courts below ought to have passed a money decree in the sum of Rs. 15000/- which was the amount allegedly paid by the appellant to the defendant no.2. There is no such prayer for a money decree made by the appellant in the suit. In the absence of specific prayer for the same the trial court could not have considered the question. Be it as it may no substantial question of law emerges in this appeal for consideration. Hence second appeal is dismissed summarily.
(A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)
Babaso Abdul Naikwade
Ilahi Mehboob Mokashi
A. P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
