Dismissed

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar v. Shri. Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

Bombay HC21 Jan 2013SA/654/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a property dispute involving injunction and title declaration, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The single-judge bench held that no substantial question of law was involved regarding the factual findings on partitions and witness evidence.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in the admission stage; Civil Application No.1216 of 2012 also dismissed.

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar Vs Shri. Nanaso Bajrang… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

sa654-12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2012

¶4

Shri Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar

¶5

& Ors. .. Appellant/s v/s.

¶6

Shri Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

¶7

& Ors. ..Respondent/s

¶8

Mr.Rahul Kate for the Appellant/s.

¶9

Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for the Respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 21^st JANUARY 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The respondent nos.1 to

¶13

4 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 191 of 1994 against Shankar and two

¶14

others, namely Tatyaba and Gojaba for declaration, injunction and alternate prayer for possession. The said suit was partly decreed by

¶15

judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 in as much as the case of the

¶16

plaintiff that they are owners in respect of the land was accepted and

¶17

pps 1/4

¶18

sa654-12.sxw

¶19

the declaration was given in that behalf. The Learned Trial Judge, however, rejected the case of injunction as also alternate possession and the suit is dismissed.

¶20

The four plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.48 of 2005 in the District Court at Satara. That Civil Appeal was granted and original defendant nos.1 and 2 were restrained from disturbing possession of the original plaintiff. It appears that there is a typographical mistake and the injunction ought to have been granted against the heirs of original defendant no.1 and respondent no.2. The claim of the original plaintiffs that they are the owners was rejected. This appeal is filed by the persons against whom the order of injunction has been passed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011.

¶21

Learned Advocate Mr.Kate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the District Court wrongly accepted the case of the original plaintiffs and the District Court has gone into the question of knowledge of the two witnesses about the partition of the land and that

¶22

pps 2/4

¶23

sa654-12.sxw

¶24

is how the two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have been discarded.

¶25

In so far as the evidence of the respective parties, it is observed that there is a word against word. However, ultimately, court has granted injunction against the present appellants.

¶26

It is common ground that initially the mutation entries stood in the name of the present appellants. However, in the year 1999 the revenue record was changed and the names of the present respondents are appearing. In any case, on the date when the suit came to be filed, names of the present respondents appeared in the revenue records. With the revenue record standing in the name of the present respondents the burden of the appellants was heavy in as much as they ought to have placed before the court cogent evidence to show that despite revenue record standing in favour of the respondents, the appellants are in possession. It is true that out of the four appellants one appellant stepped into the witness box by name Laxman

¶27

pps 3/4

¶28

sa654-12.sxw

¶29

Songwalkar and in addition to this witness, the two other witnesses were examined. The learned Judge has considered their evidence on factual aspect of the matter and has disbelieved them. After having gone through the observations made by the learned District Judge, I am inclined to observe that the learned District Judge has gone through the record, including the position which is appearing in the revenue record and has issued an order of injunction. The impugned judgment of the district court cannot be faulted as all necessary record has been seen. No substantial question of law is involved.

¶30

In view of the above, second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

In view of dismissal of second appeal, Civil Application No.1216 of 2012 is also dismissed.

¶32

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶33

pps 4/4

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar v. Shri. Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar v. Shri. Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

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

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

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

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale Vs Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

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. Nanasaheb Bajrang Sonwalkar