Dismissed

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

Bombay HC21 Jan 2013SA/96/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court dismissed two second appeals against decreed orders in regular civil suits for recovery of possession of agricultural land, rejecting limitation and ambiguity objections raised by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Second appeals and connected applications dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

1) Baban Ramchndra More (Since Ded. Thr. L/H) 1A) Rajkumar… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

sa 96 and 217-11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2011 with SECOND APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2011

¶4

Baban Ramchandra More

¶5

(since deceased through L.Rs) Rajkumar Baban More & Ors. .. Appellant/s

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Shankar Ganpati Dabhade

¶8

& Ors. ..Respondent/s

¶9

Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Appellant/s.

¶10

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

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned Advocates on both sides. Regular Civil Suit

¶13

No.344 of 1969 was filed against the present appellants and two others

¶14

to recover possession in respect of 10 properties, whereas Regular

¶15

Civil Suit No.210 of 1970 was filed against the present appellants and

¶16

two others for recovery of 4 properties. Both these suits were tried

¶17

pps 1/5

¶18

sa 96 and 217-11.sxw

¶19

together as the point involved was the same. The original plaintiffs had contended that present appellants and two others had dispossessed the plaintiffs in respect of the properties covered by the two suits and that is how the suits were filed for recovery of possession. These two suits were decided by common judgment and decree dated 25.7.2003 and the said suits were decreed in favour of the present respondent no.1. Regular Civil Appeal No.85 of 2003 was filed being aggrieved by judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No.344 of 1969. Regular Civil Appeal No.84 of 2003 was filed being aggrieved by judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 1970. These two appeals were decided by separate judgment, both being dated 13.10.2010.

¶20

Heirs of appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No.85 of 2003 have filed Second Appeal No.96 of 2011. Similarly, heirs of Appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No.84 of 2003 have filed Second Appeal No.182 of 2011. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The original plaintiffs had approached the trial court with a case that they were in

¶21

pps 2/5

¶22

sa 96 and 217-11.sxw

¶23

possession in respect of the properties and that they were the owners in respect of the properties on account of proceeding under Section 32G of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (For Short said Act).

¶24

The present appellants and other defendants had contended that the surrender of the land by their forefather was not proper and that the proceeding under Section 32G of the said Act never ended in favour of the original plaintiffs. Those points were decided against the present appellants upto the level of this court.

¶25

The case before the court was whether the respondent Shankar, original plaintiff No.1 and others were dispossessed as alleged in the plaint. It was argued before this Court that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. This contention has been rejected on the ground that as the dispossession is alleged to have taken place in the year 1967 or thereabout and therefore filing of the suit in the year 1969-70 was treated as within the limitation.

¶26

pps 3/5

¶27

sa 96 and 217-11.sxw

¶28

The plaintiffs approached the court with the case that they have been dispossessed in the year 1967 or thereabout and the defendants took up the defence that they continued in possession on account of their rights as claimed. The stand of the defendants was rejected and that is how the plaintiffs case that they have been dispossessed has been accepted. No fault can be found therein.

¶29

It was contended that exact date of dispossession is not mentioned in the plaint and therefore the case of dispossession in the year 1967 or thereabout ought to have been disbelieved.

¶30

In my view, in regard to agricultural land, it is quite possible that an owner of the land may not visit his property for some time and it is only when he discovers that somebody else is in possession, he may be prompted to file suit for possession. In my view, the absence of specific date in a plaint cannot be the ground for discarding the case of the plaintiffs as regards dispossession.

¶31

pps 4/5

¶32

sa 96 and 217-11.sxw

¶33

In my view, the points raised before the trial court were rightly considered and the evidence placed before the court has been rightly appreciated and the finding has been given. Hence both these second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

In view of the above, Civil Application No.217 of 2011 in Second Appeal No.96 of 2011 and Civil Application No.447 of 2011 in Second Appeal No.182 of 2011 are also dismissed with no order as to

¶35

costs.

¶36

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶37

pps 5/5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

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

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

Suryaji Sambhaji Patil Vs Udaysinghvasantrao Pawar

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar Vs Shri. Nanaso Bajrang Sonwalkar

Shri. Nagdas Shankar Sonwalkar Vs Shri. Nanasaheb Bajrang Sonwalkar