Appeal by original defendant against decree for recovery of possession. Court found identity of suit property proved and dismissed appeal summarily as no substantial question of law arose.
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, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2010
Arun s/o Soma Choudhari
.. APPELLANT
VERSUS
Kashinath s/o Mana Choudhari & others
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant.
=====
CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2010
PER COURT :
concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. Respondents / original
plaintiffs instituted suit claiming recovery of possession of residential premises
bearing Gram Panchayat house no. 256 (present Gram Panchayat house
no. 260) city survey no. 1102 situate at village Mamurabad. It is contended
by plaintiffs that the house property is purchased by plaintiff no. 1 and his
brother from father of defendant by securing registered sale-deed on
2
17-5-1965. After execution of the sale-deed, defendant's father was
permitted to occupy the suit premises for residential purpose by the plaintiffs. On demise of father of the defendant, he continued possession over the property. After making request by the plaintiffs, defendant refused to vacate the premises, as such, plaintiffs were constrained to present the suit claiming recovery of possession.
He contended that the suit property actually belongs to one Sk. Gulab Sk. Abbad and he ( defendant ) has been put in possession by the owner of the suit property. Defendant denied title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and contends that the suit property is different than the property claimed by the plaintiffs which has been purchased under the registered sale-deed.
the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat house nos. 256, 259 and 260 are
given to the suit property at different point of time. The property which is numbered as house no. 260 at present is the same which was numbered as
259 previously. Plaintiffs have also examined witness no. 2 Village
3
Development Officer to substantiate the contention. Apart from this aspect, defendant has also admitted in his cross examination that Gram Panchayat house no. 260 was previously numbered as 259 and previous house no. 259 was recorded in the name of plaintiff no. 1 Kashinath and his brother in the Village Panchayat record. Thus, the plaintiffs have proved identity of the property. Defendant has failed to establish that the suit property infact belongs to one Sk. Gulab Sk. Abbas and that said Sk. Gulab Sk. Abbas has allotted the same for residential purpose to the defendant. Considering all the relevant aspects, trial court has granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs
which has been confirmed by the first appellate court while dismissing the appeal presented by original defendant. On perusal of the judgment, I am convinced that the reasons recorded by the courts below are logical and proper. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily.
5 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands
disposed of.
( R. M. BORDE, J.)
dyb/office/sa143.10.odt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the appeal against the decree for recovery of possession.
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Arun s/o Soma Choudhari
Kashinath s/o Mana Choudhari & others
R. M. BORDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
