Dismissed

Wadju Tolaji Mane and Others. v. Masa Arjuna Jagade.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2012SA/152/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Rule 11 of the Appeal side ||, the High Court disposed of Second Appeal Nos. 152 and 153 of 1988. The substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of a simplicitor Suit for injunction had been answered by a Division Bench. In view of this, the Court held there was nothing left to decide and dismissed the appeals without costs.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeals dismissed. No costs.

Wadju Tolaji Mane and Others. Vs Masa Arjuna… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 S.A. 152...........1988

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 152 OF 1988

¶5

Wadju S/o Tolaji Mane & Ors. V/s Masa S/o Arjuna Jagde – Died - through L.Rs.

¶6

Mr. S.K.Shelke, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1988

¶8

Vithoba S/o Tolaji Mane & Ors. V/s Masa S/o Arjuna Jagde – Died - through L.Rs.

¶9

Mr. S.K.Shelke, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 19/06/2012.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

The appellants and respondents both had filed Suits for injunction. The Suit filed by the present respondent came to be decreed and the Suit filed by the appellants came to be

¶13

2 S.A. 152...........1988

¶14

dismissed. The present appellants filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the present Second Appeals are filed.

¶15

This Court had framed the substantial questions of law as to whether the simplicitor Suit for injunction is maintainable. A Reference was made to the Division Bench for deciding the said issue. The Division Bench has disposed of the Reference in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench holding that the Suit would be maintainable and would depend on the facts of each case.

¶16

In view of the Reference being decided, the substantial question of law stands answered.

¶17

At this stage, Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact in the year 1991 itself, the parties had settled the matter. The appellant had executed registered sale deed in respect of 40 R. land from G.No. 199 and 42 R. land from G.No. 200 and the parties have settled the matter.

¶18

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no settlement in writing arrived at

¶19

3 S.A. 152...........1988

¶20

between the parties nor the same is before the Court.

¶21

If at all the parties have settled the matter, then they would be governed by the settlement between them.

¶22

However, as the substantial question of law is already answered in the present matter, nothing remains to be decided in the matter and as such the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

¶23

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶24

KNP/S.A. 152...........1988

Wadju Tolaji Mane and Others. v. Masa Arjuna Jagade.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wadju Tolaji Mane and Others. v. Masa Arjuna Jagade.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande Vs the Divisional Controller, Msrtc, Parbhani

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot Vs the State.of Maha.

Santosh Vithal Shelke Vs Noushad Siddiqui @ Naoushad Ahmed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and Anr.

Ganpati Gyanoba Shrimangal. Vs Bhanudas Shantaram Rukme.

Mandodaribai Narayan Shinde and Another. Vs Devrao Nana Gholap.

Smt. Kusumbai Arjun Kakde Vs Santram Arjun Kakde and Ors.