Dismissed

Smt. Yesubai Kisan Nakti v. Lila Narayan Divekar

Bombay HC23 Jan 2013SA/579/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning removal of encroachment on property, the High Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellants' permit of encroachment could not be disturbed. The Court found no substantial question of law, dismissed the appeal without an order on costs, and dismissed a related civil application.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal No. 579 of 2012 dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs; Civil Application 859 of 2012 dismissed.

Smt. Yesubai Kisan Nakti Vs Lila Narayan Divekar — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

sa-579-12

¶2

:1:

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2012

¶5

Smt.Yesubai Kisan Nakti & others .. Appellants V/s. Lila Narayan Divekar .. Respondent

¶6

Shri Saikumar Ramamurthy and Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy, Advocates for the appellants Shri Pratap Patil, Advocate for respondent.

¶7

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

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard learned Advocates of both the sides. Regular Civil Suit

¶10

No. 21 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein to seek removal of encroachment in regard to land, more particularly set out in the plaint. Said suit has been decreed by judgment and decree dt. 24/03/2003. The

¶11

Civil Appeal filed by the present appellants being Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2005 in the District Court at Alibaug has been dismissed by judgment and decree dt. 09/12/2000.

¶12

I have heard learned Advocate Shri Ramamurthi appearing

¶13

ingale

¶14

:2: sa-579-12

¶15

on behalf of Appellants. Both Courts have considered the question of facts as regards the alleged encroachment by the present appellants and have recorded the findings that the appellants have permitted the encroachment in regard to the land which is described in the present suit. In my view, at this stage of Second Appeal , this concurrent findings cannot be disturbed. No substantial question of law is involved in.

¶16

Learned Advocate Shri Ramamurthi submitted that second suit being Regular Suit No. 22 of 2000 was filed by the present respondent to seek certain orders as regards damage to the compound wall caused. That suit has been dismissed and no appeal is filed against said judgment and decree. In my view, the Regular Suit No. 21 & 22 of 2000 were decided on 24/03/2003 and by separate judgment decreed the Civil Suit No. 22 of 2000 was equally decided on 24/03/2003. Regular Civil Suit No 21 of 2000 was for substantive relief such as recovery of possession and injunction.

¶17

In my view, findings in the Regular Civil Suit 22 of 2000 would not affect the merits of Suit 21 of 2000.

¶18

It was also argued by learned Advocate for appellants that the decree passed by the Trial Court is not clear in as much as it has ordered

¶19

that the appellants should remove encroachment admeauring 15 sq.m of eastern side in the suit by removing the structure therein. In so far as this

¶20

ingale

¶21

:3: sa-579-12

¶22

aspect is concerned, Surveyor was examined and as to which area is subject matter of encroachment is very much determined. In my view, impugned decree is clear as between the appellants and respondent and that there is no error in said impugned decree.

¶23

In my view, for the reasons mentioned above, Second Appeal cannot be admitted as no substantial question of law is involved. Same is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. Civil Application 859 of 2012 is dismissed.

¶24

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶25

ingale

Smt. Yesubai Kisan Nakti v. Lila Narayan Divekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yesubai Kisan Nakti v. Lila Narayan Divekar

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

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

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