Baban Madhav Govari and Anr. v. Mumtaj Rasool Manihar and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed at admission stage. Appellants failed to prove respondents were trespassers; evidence showed respondents were in possession when sale was executed, contradicting appellants' claim that they were encroachers.
What the court decided
423-11-sa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2011
Baban Madhav Govari & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Mumtaj Rasoon Manihar & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. S.P. Thorat for the appellants None for the respondents
CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th JANUARY, 2013
P.C. :
- Heard learned advocate Mr. Thorat for the appellants. The
appellants filed a suit against the respondents seeking possession of the property. That suit was dismissed, being Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 2004 filed in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palghar. The Civil Appeal No.30 of 2009 filed in the District Court is also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11th January, 2011.
- In the course of arguments, the appellants had to concede
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the surveyor's report under Section 5-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be considered without verifying its accuracy when the parties admit possession remains with the respondents.
Whether the trial court erred in treating the respondents as encroachers when evidence showed they were in possession at the time of the sale deed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Baban Madhav Govari & Anr.
- respondent
Mumtaj Rasoon Manihar & Ors.
Coram
R.Y. Ganoo
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court