The High Court Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of the first appeal court that house properties were partitioned in 1964 with agricultural lands, noting no substantial question of law arose.
The appeal stands dismissed.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 26/2007
________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate for appellants. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents no. 1A to 1C.
Date : 19th July, 2010
PER COURT :
1 Heard. 2 Both the Courts below held against the appellant/plaintiff that the house properties were also partitioned in 1964 alongwith agricultural lands. The learned judge of the first appeal Court giving cogent reasons, recorded a finding which is mainly on facts that the partition of house properties also took place. In view of this, there is no scope for interference in the finding of facts. There appears no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.
tsk/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding that house properties were partitioned in 1964 along with agricultural lands requires interference.
Appellant/Plaintiff
Respondents 1A to 1C
Bench
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
