Partly allowed

Hiraman Sitaram Martode and Others v. Pundlik Raghoba Lade and Another

Bombay HC2 Nov 2023CAS/1451/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the deletion and correction of the third appellant's name in the appeal memo at the appellants' risk. The disposition was pending on substantive questions of law regarding the validity of a Power of Attorney, a sale deed, and limitation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to delete Appellant No.3's name and correct his name at the appellants' risk; amendment to be done within two weeks.

Hiraman Sitaram Martode and Others Vs Pundlik Raghoba Lade… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 23 sa 407-2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.1451/2023 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.407/2023

¶4

Hiraman Sitaram Martode and others Vs.

¶5

Pundlik Raghoba Lade and another

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri S.A. Puranik, Advocate for appellants

¶8

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATED : 02/11/2023

¶9

The present application is filed for grant of permission to delete the name of appellant No.3 and also for necessary correction in the name of appellant No.3 as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the appeal memo.

¶10

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Permission is granted to delete the name of Appellant No.3 from the array of appellants. Permission is also granted to correct the name of the appellant No.3 at the risk and consequences to be borne by appellants.

¶11

Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

2 23 sa 407-2023

¶14

After amendment is carried out, issue notice to the respondents, returnable within three week on following substantial questions of law:

¶15

“ i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right in holding that the Power of Attorney dated 15/12/2004 was duly executed by Sitaram s/o Govind Martode?

¶16

ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right in holding that there was no compliance of Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC for holding that the Power of Attorney dated 15/12/2004 is a fake and fraud document?

¶17

iii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right in holding that the sale deed dated 09/03/2006 is valid even though if it is executed on the basis of an unregistered Power of Attorney as per Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act?

¶18

iv) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right in holding that the suit itself is barred by limitation? ”

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

R.S. Sahare

Hiraman Sitaram Martode and Others v. Pundlik Raghoba Lade and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiraman Sitaram Martode and Others v. Pundlik Raghoba Lade and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdas Ukarda Matre and Another Vs Motiram S/O Haribhau @ Harinarayan Chaware and Others

Smt. Umeme Aiman W/O Ziaul Hasan and Others Vs Shri Idrees Husain Asgar Ali and Others

Smt. Venubai Wd/O. Leeladhar Parate and Others Vs Shri. Anand S/O. Jagannath Gulhane and Others

Smt. Prembala W/O Manmohan Chawla Vs Shri Gulabrao S/O Shriram Mahale and Another

Mrs Snehal W/O Vivek Ubarhande Vs Mr. Vivek Eknath Ubarhande

Moreshwar @ Harishchandra S/O Tulshiram Ambilkar Vs Shardabai Madhav Rangari and Others