Dismissed

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale v. Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

Bombay HC18 Jan 2013SA/597/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a dismissed civil suit for injunction over property possession, the High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved as the trial court's dismissal was a concurrent finding. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale Vs Jalindar Kashinath Mandale — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

597-12-sa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.597 OF 2012

¶4

Macchindra Kashinath Mandale .. Appellant V/s. Jalindar Kashinath Mandale & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Purshottam G. Chavan for the appellant None for the respondents

¶6

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18^th JANUARY, 2013

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The present appellant is the person who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.629 of 2005 in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras, Dist. Solapur seeking injunction against Jalindar and Ramchandra i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 that respondent nos. 1 and 2 should not interfere with his

¶9

possession as he has been put in possession of the properties mentioned in the suit on account of sale deeds. That case of the present appellant was rejected and the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2008. The Civil Appeal No.31 of 2008 filed by the present appellants in the District Court has been dismissed by judgment and decree

1 of 2

U.S.Jagtap

597-12-sa=.doc

dated 20th January, 2012. The very fact that the suit is

¶14

dismissed clearly goes to show that the case of the appellant that he was in possession of the lands which he claimed to have purchased from the respondents has been rejected. In effect, there has been a concurrent finding as regards the question of possession of the present appellants.

¶15

In reply to the questions put to the learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the appellant contended that he was in possession. The appellant could not point out any infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Judge as well as by the District Court. It is well settled that evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the second appeal.

¶16

No substantial question of law is involved. The Second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order

as to costs.

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

2 of 2

U.S.Jagtap

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale v. Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale v. Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

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

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.

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through Its Chairman) Vs Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Motors and Ors.

Sarjerao Jalindar Mandale Vs Lochanabia Jalindar Mandale