Dismissed

Chandrakant Sakharam Jadhav v. Sayaji Vithalrao Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2013SA/581/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal concerning a property dispute, the Single Judge held that the District Judge correctly rejected the City Survey Officer's report as the survey lacked measurements of adjacent plots necessary to ascertain encroachments, and thus the Second Appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Chandrakant Sakharam Jadhav Vs Sayaji Vithalrao Patil and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

GAG

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.581 OF 2007.

¶5

Chandrakant Sakharam Jadhav :: Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sayaji Vithalrao Patil & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

CORAM => R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE => 17^th JANUARY, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Appellant.

¶12

None present for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

¶13

[2] The Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 62 Of 1987 in the Civil Court, (Jr.Divn.), Vita, District Sangali against the Respondents seeking possession of land admeasuring 6 x 45 fts. being encroached portion. Learned Civil Judge,(Jr.Divn.), Vita has decreed

¶14

the suit by Judgment and Decree dated 23^rd March, 1993. Being aggrieved by said Judgment and Order, the Respondents have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 252 Of 1993. The learned District Judge -1 Sangali, allowed said Appeal by Judgment and Decree dated

¶15

¶16

15^th January, 2007 and dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 62 Of 1987. Hence, this Second Appeal.

¶17

[3] I have heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned District Judge -1 Sangali has gone into the question of job done by the Survey Officer and has declined to accept the report of the Survey Officer primarily on the ground that, plot other than the plots in dispute has not been measured at the time of carrying out the measurement.

¶18

[4] According to Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Appellant, this defect pointed out by the learned District Judge -1 Sangali should not be accepted by this Court, as the City Survey report is completely in favour of the present Appellant.

¶19

[5] The learned counsel for the Appellant tried to support his stand by contending that, according to the Appellant, the Respondent had committed an encroachment towards southern side and, the northern side of the plot purchased by the present Appellant was bound by the road. He further pointed out that the Respondents are none other than the persons who have sold the land to the present Appellant.

¶20

¶21

[6] After having seen of the observations made by the learned District Judge, in the impugned Judgment, it is clear to me that, he was right in discarding the evidence of City Survey Officer. In my view, the City Survey Officer ought to have measured the disputed portion alongwith the adjacent plots in order to ascertain whether the allegations as regards encroachments are made out or not. It cannot be that the portion which is said to have been encroached would be measured simplicitor and decision can be arrived at.

¶22

[7] In my view, the course adopted by the learned District Judge -1 Sangli was right and order allowing the Appeal cannot be faulted with in a Second Appeal as no fault can be found therein.

¶23

[8] In view of the aforesaid discussion, points raised by learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted to admit the Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. No other law point is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

( R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Chandrakant Sakharam Jadhav v. Sayaji Vithalrao Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Sakharam Jadhav v. Sayaji Vithalrao Patil 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

Mr. Pralhad Tukaram Patil Vs the Asst. Controller for Unauthorized Construcion Cidco Navi Mumbai

Smt. Vimal Laxman Jadhav Vs Smt. Janabai Laxman Suryawanshi and Anr.

Popat Khanderao Vaikande Vs Pandu Budha Vaikande

Dashrath Jaywant Kutwal (Deceased Thr. L/H.) 1A Hanumant Dashrath Kutwal Vs Ramdas Anandrao Kutwal

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir Since Died Heirs and Ors.

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir (Decd.)by Lrs.