Dismissed

Shri Ramdhani Sukhraj Varma and Anr. v. Shri Anant S. Bortode and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2013CRA/984/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the petitioners challenged an appeal order which had modified a decree to declare them joint tenants of only the northern half of a terrace based on rent receipt evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition finding no error.

What did the court decide?

The petition failing and dismissed; no interference with the impugned order called for.

Shri Ramdhani Sukhraj Varma and Anr. Vs Shri Anant S. Bortode and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

-: 1 :-

6.cra.984.12

ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 984 OF 2012

¶6

Shri Ramdhani Sukhraj Varma and another .. Petitioners Vs.

¶7

Shri Anant S.Bortode and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. B.K.Bali i/b Bali & Associates, for Petitioners. Mr. R.N.Jawal, for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J . DATE : 27^th August, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard Mr.Bali, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jawal, learned Counsel for the respondents at length.

¶13

By this petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), the original plaintiff and defendant No.2 have challenged the judgment and order dated 16/08/2012 passed by the Appellant Court of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 665 of 2008. By that order, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and modified the judgment and order dated 28/07/2008 passed by the trial Court in R.A.D Suit No.421 of 2000 and declared that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 herein, are joint tenants of northern half portion of the terrace. The

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

6.cra.984.12

¶16

respondents were directed to issue rent receipts in joint names of the petitioners herein.

¶17

In support of this petition, Mr.Bali strenuously contended that the Appellate Court committed serious error in interfering with the well reason order passed by the trial Court. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the entire terrace together with the room thereon was let out to the petitioners. As against this, the Appellate Court held that only northern half portion of terrace was let out to the petitioners. He invited my attention to the rent receipts which are referred in paragraph 16 of the impugned order. The rent receipts filed at Exhibit 'B' collectively i.e serial No. 71 to 117 from May 1979 till February 1984 shows only word “Aagashi” (terrace). On the basis of these documents, the petitioners are claiming the tenancy over the entire terrace. The Appellate Court considered the documents at Exhibit 'A' collectively from 1977 till 1979 which shows that some portion of the terrace was let out to the petitioners. The rent receipts filed at Exhibits 'E' collectively i.e. serial No. 1 to 44 from January 1998 till July 2006 show that half portion of the terrace was given to the petitioners. The same thing was repeated in the rent receipts till 01/08/2006. The rent receipts at Exhibit 49, which for the period from October 2007 to January 2008 also show half portion of the terrace was let out to the petitioners on tenancy basis. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Court found that

¶18

-: 3 :-

¶19

6.cra.984.12

¶20

the petitioners were not let out entire terrace but only northern half portion of the terrace. Mr. Bali was not in a position to demonstrate as to how the rent receipts showing either some portion of the terrace or half portion of the terrace were changed to the rent receipts indicating entire terrace. Except few rent receipts indicating that terrace was let out to the petitioners, there is no material on record to indicate as how some portion of the terrace which was let out originally was subsequently changed to entire terrace. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on appreciating material on record. Mr. Bali was not in a position to demonstrate that findings recorded by the Appellate Court are perverse being based on no evidence on record.

¶21

In the result, no interference is called for. Hence, petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Shri Ramdhani Sukhraj Varma and Anr. v. Shri Anant S. Bortode and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramdhani Sukhraj Varma and Anr. v. Shri Anant S. Bortode and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Bank of India Vs Tejumal Lakhimchand Narang (Since Decd)

Kamal Pasha Zaidy Vs Ram Kripal

Kamal Pasha Zaidy Vs Durgawati Devi

Shankar Subhash and Anr. Vs Kaikhosrow Meherban Tirandazian (Deceased through Lrs.) and Anr.

Virendra Kishorlal Mehta and Ors. Vs Keshavsingh Dwarkadas Kapadia and Ors.

Mr. Vijay D. Mandanekar (Since Decd), through Lrs Vs Narendra B. Mantri