Partly allowed

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. v. Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

Bombay HC19 Mar 2013WP/60/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order deleting issue No.1 regarding land ownership. The High Court held that since the suit sought possession of an encroached area and the defendant specifically denied ownership in the written statement, the issue of ownership was relevant. The order was partly set aside to frame and decide issue No.1.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order partially setting aside issue No.1 was set aside; the trial court was directed to frame and decide issue No.1 regarding ownership and allow additional evidence.

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. Vs Dharma Ramdhan Chavan — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2013.

¶7

1. Prakash S/o Rambhau Pawar,
Age 50 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Gunanaik Tanda No.1,
Post Jambsamarth,
Tq.Ghansawangi, Dist.Jalna.

¶8

2. Ramrao S/o Kanhiram Rathod,
Age 50 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Gunanaik Tanda No.4,
Post Jambsamarth,
Tq.Ghansawangi, Dist.Jalna.

¶9

3. Rajaram S/o Gulab Chavan,
Age 40 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Gunanaik Tanda No.4,
Post Jambsamarth, Tq.
Ghansawangi, Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioners.

¶10

Versus

¶11

Dharma S/o Ramdhan Chavan,
Age 37 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Gunanaik Tanda No.4,
Post Jambsamarth, Tq.
Ghansawangi, Dist.Jalna. ... Respondent.

¶12

Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr.S.A.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶15

 Date : 19.03.2013.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

1.Heard.

¶18

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶19

3.The petitioners/defendants assail the
deletion of issue No.1 about the ownership of
land Gat NO.110.

¶20

4.Mr.S.A.Deshmukh, learned counsel for

¶21

the Respondent submits that the Court after
considering the pleadings of the parties had
rightly passed the order. The defendants have
nowhere specifically denied the ownership of the
plaintiff.

¶22

5.Mr.R.M.Deshmukh,learnedcounsel

¶23

submits that the defendants in their Written
Statement have specifically denied the ownership
of the plaintiff over the suit land.

¶24

¶25

6.Taking into consideration the pleadings
of the parties and the fact that the suit is for
possession of the alleged encroached area, the
issue of ownership would be relevant. In view of
that the order impugned is partly set aside to
the extent of original Issue No.1 framed on
30.4.2009.

¶26

7. In the result, I pass the following

¶27

order :

¶28

(a)Along with issue Nos.4 to 7 the Court
shall also frame and decide issue No.1 which
reads as under :

¶29

"Does the plaintiff prove that he is owner
of 81 ares land from Gat No.110 situated at
Gunanaik Tanda No.4, Tq.Ghanswangi."

¶30

The plaintiff has already led his examination-in-
Chief. The plaintiff may lead additional
evidence.

¶31

4 (b) Rule accordingly made absolute. No

¶32

costs.

¶33

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶34

asp/office/wp6013

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. v. Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. v. Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

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

Shekhar Ramesh Chaudhari Vs Lakdu Sajan Bhat and Ors.

Jitendra Marutirao Shinde and Ors. Vs Shivajirao Shridharrao More and Ors.

Kishor Rangnath Walunje Vs the Additional Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Ganpati Rangnath Khose Vs Sarangdhar Bapurao Khose and Another

Vasantrao Shankarrao Amrutkar Vs Kishor Jagannath Kasodekar and Others

Bhikchand Uttamchand Dugad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others