Dismissed

Kashinath Sayabanna Hattarge and Other v. Gangabai Kashinath Purane

Bombay HC26 Jul 2017SA/759/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a partition decree dismissed. The court held that since one property involved in the partition was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and this High Court, the cause of action arose within their jurisdiction. The challenge to jurisdiction was rejected as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Amount of Rs.10,000/- payable to Bar Association and balance Rs.10,000/- adjusted against mesne profit.

Kashinath Sayabanna Hattarge and Other Vs Gangabai Kashinath Purane — Partition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

759.15sa

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.759 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9906 OF 2015 IN

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO.759 OF 2015

¶6

1. Kashinath Sayabanna Hattarge, Age: 72 years, Occ: Agri.,

¶7

2.Hanumant Saybanna Hattarge,
Age: 67 years, Occ: Agri.,

¶8

Both R/o. Murum, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad...APPELLANTS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Gangabai w/o Kashinath Purane,
Age: 52 years, Household,
R/o. Murum, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad...RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr Paraga V. Barde, Advocate for appellants;

¶12

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

 DATE : 26th JULY, 2017

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

The appellants-defendants suffered decree

¶16

for partition and separate possession, which is

¶17

questioned in this second appeal, on the ground

¶18

that both the Courts below without having any
territorial jurisdiction, exercised their powers,

¶19

(2)

¶20

as one of the property, of which, partition is
ordered is situated outside the jurisdiction of
this Court.

¶21

2.Considered the submissions in the light of
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶22

3.The fact remains that of the properties of

¶23

which partition is sought, one of the property is
situated at Omerga in Osmanabad district, which is
within jurisdiction of this Court and also of the
trial Court.

¶24

4.As such, part of cause of action arose to
therespondent-plaintiffwithinterritorial

¶25

jurisdiction of the trial Court.

¶26

5.In my opinion, substantial question of

¶27

law, as is sought to be espoused, is without any
legal basis. As such, second appeal lacks merit
and stands dismissed.,

¶28

6.It is claimed that amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶29

759.15sa

¶30

is deposited in the trial Court towards condition

¶31

for granting stay. As it is held that the appeal
lacks substance, in my opinion, of the amount of
Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- be paid paid to the Bar
Association, Omerga, District Osmanabad and balance
amount of Rs.10,000/- be adjusted in the amount, if

¶32

any, made payable against mesne profit.

¶33

7.Consequently, civil application stands

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

Tupe

Kashinath Sayabanna Hattarge and Other v. Gangabai Kashinath Purane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Sayabanna Hattarge and Other v. Gangabai Kashinath Purane

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

Mayabai Narayan Fateh Lashkar Vs Bhaimabai Chhannulal Meghwale 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

Bhimrao s/o Shivlingrao Patil Died through L.Rs. Padminibai Bhimrao Patil and another Vs Shankar S/o Shivlingrao Patil

Sau. Shilpa Yogesh Halgaonkar Vs Yogesh Govind Halgaonkar

Rajdhar Girdhar More Vs Sukhlal Madhav Pardeshi (Teli) and Others