Dismissed

Jalilkhan Tilawarkhan Pathan Thr Gpa Khalilkhan Tilawatkhan v. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kundalwadi

Bombay HC14 Jun 2012SA/212/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge to concurrent lower court findings. The court held that the appellant failed to produce ownership documents or evidence of physical possession, while the respondent established a valid resolution for renovating existing urinals. The appeal was dismissed for lack of substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Jalilkhan Tilawarkhan Pathan Thr Gpa Khalilkhan… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 S.A. 212.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2012

¶4

Jalilkhan S/o Tilawarkhan Pathan V/s The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.

¶5

Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶6

Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶8

DATE : 14/06/2012.

¶9

ORAL ORDER :

¶10

The present appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed

¶11

Suit for injunction. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the Appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said concurrent findings in the present Second Appeal.

¶12

Mr. Nagarkar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that initially the grand-father of the plaintiff was the owner and thereafter the plaintiff along with the other heirs are the owners and possessors of the suit property. The respondent has illegally passed the

¶13

2 S.A. 212.2012

¶14

resolution and is now illegally trying to construct the urinal on the suit site. The respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The learned counsel further contends that the Courts below have not considered the documents filed on record. The property is ancestral property. The plaintiff is in possession of the same and the evidence to that effect has been led by the plaintiff, but the Courts have perversely appreciated the evidence on record.

¶15

Mr. A.S.Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent supports the Judgment and submits that fraud was played by the plaintiff and illegally the name was mutated. The same was cancelled in the year 2001. The urinals are already in existence and only they were being renovated. The evidence has been properly appreciated.

¶16

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments and the record.

¶17

Both the Courts have observed that not a single document of ownership is placed on record by the plaintiff nor the actual physical possession of the plaintiff could be viewed.

¶18

The Courts have observed that the Municipal Council had

¶19

3 S.A. 212.2012

¶20

passed resolution and the evidence has been led by the defendant that the old urinals are only being renovated.

¶21

Even the plaintiff admits that earlier in the year 1958-59, name of the grand-father was mutated, but after his death, the name of the father and the uncles of the plaintiff could not be mutated.

¶22

The Courts have properly appreciated the evidence. Both the Courts have arrived at the concurrent finding of the fact. The Courts below have taken a plausible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only because some other view may also be possible.

¶23

The Second Appeal being devoid of substantial question of

¶24

law, is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

KNP/S.A. 212.2012

Jalilkhan Tilawarkhan Pathan Thr Gpa Khalilkhan Tilawatkhan v. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kundalwadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalilkhan Tilawarkhan Pathan Thr Gpa Khalilkhan Tilawatkhan v. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kundalwadi

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

Ganpatrao Yashwantrao Deshmukh. and Others. Vs Purushottam Shriniwas Joshi (L.Rs.)Kishanrao.

Laxmibai Limbaji Bankar. Vs Eknath Keshav Bankar.

Pandurang Jagannath Agrawal. Vs Gangabai Balmukund Agrawal and Others.

Deoram Nathu Badgujar Vs Huramatbee Deseased Lrs.Sattar Baig Moor Baig

Mohammad Chandsaheb Mohammad Saheb and Another. Vs Narsing Chimshete (L.Rs.) Shivaji and Others.

Shantilal Chandmal Saklecha Vs State of Mah. Thr S.L.a.O., a'Bad