Second Appeal dismissed. The appellant, seeking permanent injunction, admitted the suit land is owned by the State Government and was in settled possession since the death of a deceased permission-grantor in 1971. The court found no substantial question of law.
Second Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
902.sa 126-15.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2015
Vajir Tajuddin Gavandi ..Appellant vs. Mahammadhusen Amin Gavandi ..Respondent
None for the appellant. Shri A.A. Shinde h/f. Shri Rahul Kulkarni for respondent.
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2019
P.C. :
None for the appellant.
yesterday. As no one appeared yesterday on behalf of the appellant I heard learned counsel for the respondent. Only by way of indulgence so as to enable the appellant an opportunity
to make his submissions the matter is listed today under the
caption for “passing orders”.
1/3
902.sa 126-15.doc
2/3
902.sa 126-15.doc
permission granted by Indumati Rani Sarkar cannot be accepted. Moreover, the plaintiff himself admitted that the land in question is owned by the Government. The plaintiff further admits that he has filed the suit against the State Government for permanent injunction and not to remove the encroachment. If in these circumstances the Courts below have come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has no legal right to occupy the suit property and hence he is not entitled for permanent injunction, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. The present Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The Appeal is dismissed.
( M.S.KARNIK, J.)
Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha RaneDate: Rane 2019.10.1517:45:59 +0530
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recording that the appellant had no legal right to occupy the suit property governed by the State Government.
Vajir Tajuddin Gavandi
Mahammadhusen Amin Gavandi
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
