Dismissed

Shri. Hanmant Anant Kulkarni v. 1.) Shri. Ananda Krishna Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2013SA/476/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Second Appeal and accompanying Civil Application were dismissed at the stage of admission. The Court found no substantial question of law involved as the concurrent findings against the appellant on possession were difficult to upset.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; Civil Application No.953 of 2012 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Shri. Hanmant Anant Kulkarni Vs 1.) Shri. Ananda Krishna… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

476-12-sa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 953 OF 2012 IN

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.476 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Hanmant Anant Kulkarni

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Shri Ananda Krishna Chavan & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Girish R. Agarwal for the appellant

¶11

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15^th JANUARY, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 1996 filed by the present appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patan, Dist. Satara was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior

¶14

Division, Patan by judgment and decree dated 27^th August, 2004. The Civil Appeal No.149 of 2004 filed in the District

¶15

Court by the appellant was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24^th February, 2012.

1 of 3

U.S.Jagtap

476-12-sa=.doc

Heard learned advocate for the appellant. On the question of possession, there is a concurrent finding against the present appellant so also on the question of alleged threat to the so called possession of the present appellant. After having heard learned advocate for the appellant extensively and perusing the plaint, it is apparent that the present appellant is aggrieved by a transaction alleged to have been executed by a Trust namely, Shri Ram Devasthan, who is undoubtedly the owner of the property in question in favour of the present defendant nos. 1 to 3.

¶20

The present Civil Appeal was filed to stall the enjoyment of the said lease deed by the present respondent nos.1 to 3. After having gone through the record, it would be difficult to upset the concurrent finding rendered by the Court below on the question of possession of the present appellant and other aspects of the matter. Hence, there is no question of admitting this appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. It is

2 of 3

U.S.Jagtap

476-12-sa=.doc

apparent that the present appellant wants to stall respondent nos. 1 to 3 from enjoying their leasehold rights and if the appellant is interested in doing so, the remedy was something else and not the institution of the suit as was done by the appellant.

¶25

In view of the above, Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of the admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Civil Application No.953 of 2012 is dismissed.

¶27

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

U.S.Jagtap

Shri. Hanmant Anant Kulkarni v. 1.) Shri. Ananda Krishna Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Hanmant Anant Kulkarni v. 1.) Shri. Ananda Krishna Chavan and Ors.

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

Smt. Shantabai Ananda Khochare Vs Chandrabhaga Baburao Yadav

Shri Ramesh Madhukar Pawar Vs Shri Chhaganlal Sohanlal Agarwal

Gotiram Jairam Deshmukh Vs Dwakanath Jairam Deshmukh and Ors.

Sardar Chandsaheb Shaikh ( Tnhro. His Power of Attorney ) Anwar Allabakash Shaikh Vs Anusaya Maruti Jadahv

Ramdas Bhima Chavan Vs Shanabai Dnyanba Suryawanshi

Baban Madhav Govari and Anr. Vs Mumtaj Rasool Manihar and Ors.