Second Appeal dismissing a challenge to concurrent findings where the appellant failed to prove title and possession of disputed lands, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
The Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
12-sa100-15.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL
Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2023.12.05 11:35:33 +0530
SECOND APPEAL NO.100 OF 2015
Narayan Deo Pirachi Kurol
...Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Appellant.
Mr.V.S. Talkute for Respondent Nos.5 and 9.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2023.
P.C. :-
1/3
12-sa100-15.doc
for injunction as regards three lands i.e. Gat Nos.756, 754/2 and 755/1. Both the Courts have held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the title and possession of the Plaintiff as regards two lands i.e. Gat Nos.756 and 754/2. As far as Gat No.755/1 is concerned, the Plaintiff has failed to prove on record the documents to prove its title and possession. The Plaintiff had produced 7/12 extract, which was of the land bearing Gat No.755/2.
2/3
12-sa100-15.doc
sold the land on 17 August 1995 to Machindra, Gorakh, Shridhar and Vithal.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proved title and possession of the lands in question.
Whether any substantial question of law arises to interfere with the lower courts' findings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narayan Deo Pirachi Kurol
The State of Maharashtra
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
