Dismissed

Smt. Satyabhama Wd/O Lataprasad Tripathi v. Laxman S/O Gomasao Ashtikar

Bombay HC5 May 2012SA/380/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against a decree directing delivery of possession based on encroachment. The appellant alleged defects in the Commissioner's report but failed to raise the correct purchase area documented in later deeds. The bench held no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed summarily as no substantial question of law was involved.

Smt. Satyabhama Wd/O Lataprasad Tripathi Vs Laxman S/O… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

0505sa380.11.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

SECOND APPEAL No. 380 of 2011

¶5

Satyabhama wd/o Laltaprasad Tripathi Vs. Laxman Gomasao Ashtikar

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Mr. Amit Khare, Advocate for appellant Mr. N. G. Jetha, Advocate for respondent

¶8

CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J . DATED : MAY 05, 2012.

¶9

This Second Appeal is by the original defendant against whom

¶10

the judgment and decree directing delivery of possession has been passed by the learned trial Judge on 30.03.2007 and which was then confirmed by the District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 340 of 2007.

¶11

Plaintiff and defendant are the owners of adjoining plots which they had purchased from one Paramjitsingh. Defendant had purchased the plot area 19 X 25 sq. ft. (as per sale deed) in the year 1991 whereas the plaintiff purchased the plot area 933 sq. ft. in the year 1993.

¶12

The plaintiff noticed that the defendant has encroached over the portion of his land and, therefore, filed a suit for removal of encroachment. It was the case of the defendant that she had not encroached over any area of the plot owned by the plaintiff.

¶13

0505sa380.11.odt

¶14

¶15

During trial the Commissioner was appointed. He visited the spot and found that the area admeasuring 162.15 sq. ft. which is a part of the plot owned by the plaintiff, has been encroached over by the defendant. Relying upon the evidence of the Commissioner and the report submitted by him, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant unsuccessfully challenged this by filing the appeal before the District Judge, hence this Second Appeal.

¶16

Mr. Amit Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant criticized the report of the Commissioner on the ground that it is full of defects. Non measuring of plot of the defendant was a measure defect and this has resulted in the learned Civil Judge coming to erroneous conclusion.

¶17

Shri Amit Khare, learned counsel was fair enough to make available for perusal of this Court the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1991 and the Correction Deed dated 23.12.2004 which were not the subject matter of scrutiny by both the Courts below. What appears from the sale deed is that the defendant had purchased the area 462.15 sq. mt. (19 X 25 sq. ft.). In the correction deed the figure 19 was substituted by 39. This speaks volumes. This seems to be the reason for not producing the sale deed when the Commissioner visited the spot and also before the Court during trial. When appeal was argued before the District Judge an attempt was

¶18

0505sa380.11.odt

¶19

¶20

made to show that by executing Correction Deed the correct area purchased by defendant has been shown. The learned District Judge did not find any substance in this contention and rightly so.

¶21

In a nutshell, the evidence brought on record has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts below and arrived at right conclusion. Therefore, in my view, no arguable point much less any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶22

Dismissed summarily.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

svk

Smt. Satyabhama Wd/O Lataprasad Tripathi v. Laxman S/O Gomasao Ashtikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Satyabhama Wd/O Lataprasad Tripathi v. Laxman S/O Gomasao Ashtikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namdeo S/O Potu Bambole Vs Kamlabai W/O Duryodhan Dongre and Anr.

Shri Dattatraya S/O Gopalrao Borkute Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman and Another

Mah. Industrial Development Corporation Thr. Its Chairman and Ors. Vs Pramila W/O Vasantrao Kalele Dead Thr. Lrs Sv Kalele

Jawaharlal Badluji Shahu Vs Vasantkumar Marotrao Ingle

N.I.T., Thr. Chairman, Civil Lines, Nagpur Vs Smt. Ramabai Baliram Selukar (Koshti) (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Branch Manager, Nagpur Vs Sawan Laxman Katakwar