Dismissed

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule v. Smt. Malutai Jinpal Mangave

Bombay HC22 Jan 2013SA/542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this decision, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the second appeals of Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule and connected civil applications. The court held that both sets of lower courts had made concurrent findings of fact against the appellant regarding possession and ownership, raising no substantial question of law to warrant admission.

What did the court decide?

The two second appeals and two civil applications were dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule Vs Smt. Malutai Jinpal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

GAG

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2012.

¶5

Alongwith

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2012.

¶7

A N D

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO.542 OF 2012.

¶9

Alongwith

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2012.

¶11

In Second Appeal No.544/12.

¶12

Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule :: Appellant.

¶13

Versus

¶14

Sukumar Jinpal Mangave & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶15

In Second Appeal No.542/12.

¶16

Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule

¶17

:: Appellant.

¶18

Versus

¶19

Smt.Malutai Jinpal Mangave & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶20

Appearance =>

¶21

Mr. Abhaysingh Shinde i/b. Mr. Rahul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant in both the Second Appeals.

¶22

Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for Respondents in both the Second Appeals.

¶23

¶24

CORAM	=>	R.Y. GANOO, J.
DATE	=>	22^thJANUARY, 2013.

¶25

P.C. :-

¶26

Heard Mr. Abhaysingh Shinde, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶27

[2] Regular Civil Suit No.171 Of 2000 was filed by the appellant - Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule against four persons, who are respondents in the aforesaid Second Appeals. By that suit, present appellant sought an injunction restraining the present respondents from dispossessing the appellant from agricultural land bearing Gat No.855 to the extent of 0.40 Are, situated at village Kawathesar, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶28

[3] Present respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 331 Of 2004 in the same Court namely the Civil Judge,(Jr.Divn.), Jaisinghpur, Dist. Kolhapur and had prayed that it be declared that they are the owners in respect of the aforesaid land and that present appellant should not interfere in their possession of the suit land. The declaration of-course was sought in respect of the entire property i.e. land Gat No.855/1 admeasuring 0.98 Are.

¶29

¶30

[4] The learned Trial Judge by common Judgment decided two Suits and decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 331 Of 2004 filed by the present respondents by granting declaration as prayed for and issued injunction as per the text of the operative part of the Judgment dated 3^rd May, 2008. Regular Civil Suit No.171 Of 2000 filed by the present appellant was dismissed by said Common Judgment. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment and Decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn.), Jaisingpur, present appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.47 Of 2008 in the District Court, Jaysinghpur. Present appellant also preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.48 Of 2008 being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.331/2004. These two Appeals were heard and decided by the learned District Judge -1 Jaisingpur by Judgment and Decree dated 15^th July, 2011. Both the appeals were dismissed.

¶31

[5] Second Appeal No.544/2012 is preferred so as to challenge the Judgment passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2008 and Second Appeal No.542/2012 is preferred in connection with the Judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.47/2008. Hence, these two appeals are taken up for hearing and common order is being passed.

¶32

¶33

[6] According to the appellant, predecessor of respondents had entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell 40 Are out of the main land in his favour for sum of Rs.4000/- and sum of Rs.3000/had already been paid. Record indicates that present appellant has not instituted suit for specific performance of said agreement. Both the Courts below have recorded finding against the present appellant on the points which have been raised before it including the question as regards possession of the present appellant and issue as regards adverse possession, as appellant claimed that he became owner of the suit property by adverse possession.

¶34

[7] Both the Courts below ultimately arrived at conclusion that the appellant cannot succeeded in his suit and the appellant must suffer an order of injunction and declaration as prayed for by the respondents.

¶35

[8] With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the sides, I have perused the record and it is apparent that there is concurrent findings as regards the question of possession as regards the present appellant is concerned. The stand of the present appellant that he secured the possession on the basis of the agreement to sale, was also rejected.

¶36

¶37

[9] Once the case of the present appellant as regards his alleged possession over the suit property was rejected and; once it was noticed by the Courts below that the appellant had come out with case that predecessor-in-title of the respondents had agreed to sell the land admeasuring 0.40 Are to the present appellant, it is not open for the appellant to dispute the ownership of the present respondents over the suit land. In substance, question of ownership was held in favour of the respondents, question of possession was also held in favour of the respondents and that is how, the appellant has to loose in both the Courts below. In my view, on the basis of the argument advanced before me which are reflected in the aforesaid part of the order, the second appeal cannot be admitted.

¶38

[10] In view of the aforesaid discussion, points raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted to admit the Second Appeals as no substantial question of law is involved. Hence, Second Appeal needs to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Consequently, I pass the following order :-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Second Appeal No.442 Of 2012 is dismissed at the stage of admission, with no order as to costs.

¶41

¶42

(ii) Civil Application No.475 Of 2012 is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶43

(iii) Second Appeal No.544 Of 2012 is dismissed at the stage of admission, with no order as to costs.

¶44

(iv) Civil Application No.473 Of 2012 is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶45

( R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule v. Smt. Malutai Jinpal Mangave

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule v. Smt. Malutai Jinpal Mangave

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

1) Baban Ramchndra More (Since Ded. Thr. L/H) 1A) Rajkumar Baban More and Ors. Vs 1) Shankar Ganpati Dabhade and Ors.

Suryaji Sambhaji Patil Vs Udaysinghvasantrao Pawar

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar Vs Shri. Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

Mrs. Subhadra Maruti Chavan Vs Shrirang Laxman Padwal

Shri Raghunath Ramchandra Chougule Vs Sukumar Jinpal Mangave

Shri Appa Balasaheb Punde Vs Shri Ramchandra Babu Punde