Dismissed

Dr. Raul Ramchandra Sukale and Anr. v. Namdeo Hitvardhak Sanstha Mahad ( Thro. Its Trustees ) Chandrakant Balkrishna Muley and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2013SA/521/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed second appeals filed by successful bidders challenging an eviction order. The court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, noting the appellants were joint defendants with adequate opportunity to contest the trial.

What did the court decide?

Both second appeals were dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

Dr. Raul Ramchandra Sukale and Anr. Vs Namdeo… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

sa-698-12&sa-521-11

¶2

:1:

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2012 ALONG WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION 197 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2011

¶8

Rahul Ramchandra Sukale and another .. Appellants V/s. Janardan Shankar Ravlekar and others .. Respondents

¶9

Shri Sachin S.Punde, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Rahul S.Kate, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri Omkar Warange, Advocate for respondents 1a to 1e.

¶10

With

¶11

SECOND APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2011 ALONG WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 291 of 2011

¶13

¶14

SECOND APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2011

¶15

Rahul Ramchandra Sukale and another .. Appellants

¶16

V/s.

¶17

ingale

¶18

:2: sa-698-12&sa-521-11

¶19

Namdeo Hitwardhak Sanstha Mahad and ors. .. Respondents

¶20

Shri Sachin S.Punde, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Rahul S.Kate, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Shri Omkar Warange, Advocate for respondents 1a to 1e.

¶21

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 23^rd JANUARY, 2013.

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

These two appeals can be disposed off by common order.

¶24

Respondent no. 1 in Second Appeal No. 698 of 2012 by

¶25

name Janardan Shankar Ravlekar filed Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mahad against present respondent no. 2 as well as present appellants and prayed for relief of possession in regard to newly constructed unit to be referred to as suit premises. That suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dt. 03/04/2003. Along with this Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 1998, suit filed by present appellants being Regular Civil Suit 68 of 1999 against respondent no.2 in Second Appeal No. 698 of 2012 was entertained. By said Regular Civil Suit 68 of 1999, present appellants had prayed that they should not be dispossessed save except due process of law. That suit was also dismissed by judgment dt. 03/04/2003. Present respondent no.1 Janardan filed

¶26

ingale

¶27

:3: sa-698-12&sa-521-11

¶28

Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008 in the District Court at Mangaon, District Raigad. Present appellants filed Civil Appeal 70 of 1998 at Mangaon District Raigad. Both these appeals were decided by judgment and decree dt. 23/02/2010.

¶29

The Civil Appeal 20 of 2008 filed by present respondent no.1 was allowed and Civil Appeal 70 of 2008 filed by present appellant was dismissed. The present appellants felt aggrieved by judgment in both civil appeals. Hence, Second Appeal 698 of 2012 is filed challenging the judgment and decree delivered in Civil Appeal 20 of 2008 and Second Appeal 521 of 2011 is filed challenging judgment and decree in Civil Appeal dt.22/02/2010.

¶30

I have heard learned Advocate of both the sides. It is seen that respondent no.1 in Second Appeal no. 698 of 2012 by name Janardan was the tenant in respect of certain premises and premises were owned by trust i.e. Namdev Hitwardhak Sanstha. Said trust wanted to develop the property in which old premises were situated. Hence, trust entered into an agreement with Janardan on 13/12/1995 and agreed that upon surrendering of the old premises, said trust will construct new premises and induct said Janardan in the suit premises. It appears that said trust after new premises were constructed called for the bids for occupation of suit

¶31

ingale

¶32

:4: sa-698-12&sa-521-11

¶33

premises and present appellants turned out to be successful bidders and agreement of lease was executed by said trust in favour of appellants being agreement dt. 16/01/1998. Said Janardan was aggrieved by conduct of the said trust and hence filed Regular Civil Suit 44 of 1998 which has been admitted by Trial Court and judgment and decree of the trial court has been confirmed by Appellate Court.

¶34

I have heard learned Advocate Shri Punde on behalf of the appellants. Learned Advocate Shri Punde submitted that in the absence of specific challenge to the agreement between trust and appellants being agreement dt. 16/01/1998, it was not open for the court below to accept the case of Janardan and decree his suit for possession. According to him, courts below should have appreciated that present appellants had turned out to be successful bidder and they were entitled to occupy suit premises on th basis of agreement dt. 16/01/1998.

¶35

In my view, the argument advanced by learned Advocate Shri Punde cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that said Janardan handed over the possession of the old premises to the trust on the basis of the agreement dt. 13/12/1995 and said agreement was binding on the said trust and therefore, after the suit

¶36

ingale

¶37

:5: sa-698-12&sa-521-11

¶38

premises came into existence, it was illegal on the part of the said trust to allow suit premises meant for Janardan to be handed over to somebody else may be calling bids. In my view, once agreement dt. 16/01/1998 is to be treated as agreement in contravention of the earlier rights and obligation created in favour of respective parties namely said Janardan, there was no need for Janardan to specifically seek declaration that the agreement dt. 16/01/1998 is not binding on him.

¶39

Even otherwise, present appellants were joined as a party defendants. They had an opportunity to face the trial and appeal proceeding. Concurrent findings have been recorded against the present appellants and that is how, appellants have lost. In my view, argument advanced by learned Advocate for appellants as mentioned aforesaid cannot be accepted. There is no substantial question of law involved in the matter. No other point was raised. Hence, Second Appeal 698 of 2012 is required to be dismissed.

¶40

In so far as Second Appeal 521 of 2011 is concerned, once it is accepted that Janardan is entitled to get possession and decree has been passed in favour of Janardan, surely present appellants will get evicted only on the execution of the said decree.

ingale

:6:

sa-698-12&sa-521-11

In any case, the record also indicates that there was no immediate threat to the present appellants at the hands of the said trust. No substantial question of law is involved. Hence, Second Appeal 521 of 2011 is required to be dismissed. In view of above, following order is passed to dispose off both these appeals.

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Second Appeal 698 of 2012 is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Civil Application 197 of 2012 is dismissed.

¶49

Second Appeal 521 of 2011 is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶50

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

Civil Application 291 of 2011 is dismissed.

¶52

(R.Y.GANOO, J.)

¶53

ingale

Dr. Raul Ramchandra Sukale and Anr. v. Namdeo Hitvardhak Sanstha Mahad ( Thro. Its Trustees ) Chandrakant Balkrishna Muley and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Raul Ramchandra Sukale and Anr. v. Namdeo Hitvardhak Sanstha Mahad ( Thro. Its Trustees ) Chandrakant Balkrishna Muley and Ors.

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

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule Vs Smt. Malutai Jinpal Mangave

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule Vs Sukumar Jinpal Mangave

Shri Appa Balasaheb Punde Vs Shri Ramchandra Babu Punde

Smt. Yesubai Kisan Nakti Vs Lila Narayan Divekar

M.S.E.B. Employees' Urja Sahakari Griharachna Sanstha Maryadit. ( Thro. Chairman) Subhash v.Dhavale Vs Ninad Sahakari Griharachna Sanstha Maryadit.

Fakruddin Hasanmiya Pardeshi Vs Ayeshabibi Hasan Khan Jummal