Dismissed

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar v. Bhaimabai Chhannulal Meghwale and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2017SA/231/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second appeal was filed against concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding possession. The appellant, who had previously given up the right to file a written statement on a revision plea, claimed adverse possession. The Single Judge held that no substantial question of law was involved, dismissed the appeal, and disposed of the connected civil application.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal is dismissed; connected Civil Application No. 6366 of 2011 is disposed of.

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar Vs Bhaimabai Chhannulal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

sa231.11

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.231 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6366 OF 2011

¶5

Smt. Mayabai w/o Narayan Fateh Lashkar, Age: 62 years, Occu: Household, Resident of 1-5-52, Begampura, Aurangabad ..APPELLANT (Orig.Deft.No.3)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Smt. Bhaimabai w/o Chhannulal Meghwale, Age: 60 years, Occu: Household, Resident of Juna Bazar, Aurangabad

¶8

Smt. Basantibai w/o Ramlal Gomtiwale, Age: Major, Occu: Household, Resident of Khatikpura, Jalna

¶9

Smt. Mannubai w/o Sitaram Batewale, Age: 60 years, Occu: Household, Resident of Kanhaiya Nagar, Jalna ..RESPONDENTS (Res. No.1 – Orig. Plff. Res. No.2 & 3 – Orig. Defendants no.1 & 2)

¶10

Mr D. V. Soman, Advocate for appellant;

¶11

Ms. Sheetal V. Salunke, Advocate holding for Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶12

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATE : 21st July, 2017

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Against the concurrent findings of possession recorded against

¶16

appellant-original defendant no.3, the present Second Appeal.

¶17

sa231.11

¶18

(2)

¶19

Mr Soman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantdefendant no.3 would urge that though no written statement was filed, the plea of adverse possession and that of limitation should have been appreciated by the Courts below. According to him, if an opportunity is given to the appellant by remanding the matter by putting him to some conditions, the suit can be worked out afresh within stipulated time.

¶20

The prayer is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-original plaintiff.

¶21

The suit for possession is based on title, whereas the present appellant-defendant claims adverse possession over the suit property and as such title to the same.

¶22

It is required to be noted that the appellant preferred Civil Revision Application No.576 of 2001 against an order of rejection of prayer for permission to file written statement in which the appellant has given-up right to file written statement, however, he is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses.

¶23

The Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff noted that there was no relationship of marriage of Shankar with Ayodhyabai. It is further observed that Shankar never stayed with Nandabai, mother of the plaintiff and as such, possession of the suit premises was sought from the appellant.

¶24

sa231.11

¶25

(3)

¶26

The Trial Court then upon appreciating the evidence as is brought on record by the respondents, declared present respondent no.1-plaintiff as owner of the suit house.

¶27

It is then required to be noted that the plea of adverse possession was not established by the present appellant, though the same is sought to be canvassed before this Court. The Trial Court in paragraph 33, while dealing with such issue has noted that the appellant has failed to establish his possession adverse to that of respondent No.1 – plaintiff, which observations were independently assessed and endorsed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court considered the revenue entries in detail and further recorded dismissal of appeal.

¶28

In view of above, in my opinion, present appeal hardly involves any substantial question of law. Second Appeal fails and stands dismissed.

¶29

In view of dismissal of appeal, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶30

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶31

amj

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar v. Bhaimabai Chhannulal Meghwale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar v. Bhaimabai Chhannulal Meghwale 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

Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal Vs Jugalkishor Chhaganlal Tapadia

Limba Dagadu Rathod(Decd)Lrs Jema L.Chavan and Ors. Vs Abdul M.Hamidkhan(Died)Lrs Sattarkhan and Ors.

Naimkhan Rashidkhan and Ors. Vs Limba Dagdu Rathod Died Lrs Jema and Ors.

The Municipal Corporation,Latur Thro. Commissioner Latur Vs Babulal Lakhamsi Patel and Others

The Municipal Corporation,Latur Thro. Commissioner Latur Vs Babulal Lakhamsi Patel and Others

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar Vs Bhaimabai Chhannulal Meghwale and Ors.