Dismissed

Sakharam Deu Patil v. Sanjeev Madhukar Bhosale

Bombay HC23 Jan 2023WP/13429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure suit property. The Court held no reason to interfere as such appointment would determine the lis without a trial, given the lack of boundary material.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application under Exhibit-77 for appointment of Court Commissioner was rejected; no interference in the impugned order.

Sakharam Deu Patil Vs Sanjeev Madhukar Bhosale — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2.WP.13429.22.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13429 OF 2022

¶6

Sakharam Deu Patil .. Petitioner

¶7

 Versus
Sanjeev Madhukar Bhosale..Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vishwanath B. Rajure for Petitioner

¶9

None for Respondent

¶10

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:JANUARY 23, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Rajure, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

¶13

2. Perused the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 passed below

¶14

Exhibit-77 in R.C.S. No. 67 of 2009. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff
before the learned Trial Court and by application under Exhibit-77 he
seeks appointment of Court Commissioner for carrying out
measurement of the Suit Property in order to determine the extent of
encroachment of the respective shares / co-sharers therein.

¶15

3. Record indicates that admittedly suit property bearing Gut No.
476 admeasures 9 hectors 99 ares and there are several co-shares.

¶16

4. The learned Trial Court considered the application as filed by the
Petitioner and has returned the findings in paragraph No. 15 of the
impugned order. According to the learned Trial Court after purchase
of the suit property by the Plaintiff on 07.11.1988, the name of the
Plaintiff has been mutated in the 7 X 12 extract but thereafter the

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

2.WP.13429.22.doc

¶19

Plaintiff has not made any further application before the Revenue
Officer seeking determination of the boundaries of the area claimed by
the Plaintiff. That apart, it is an admitted position that the suit
property i.e. Gut No. 476 is a consolidated holding having many co-
sharers and there is no record whatsoever available with the office of
the Superintendent of Land Record in respect of the rights of the co-
sharers in the said Gut number. This finding has also been recorded
by the learned Trial Court in its order. Further, there are observations
on the issue of encroachment on the suit property, which I may not
advert to determine the present Writ Petition as they are a matter of
trial. Finally, the learned Trial Court has held that the Plaintiff has not
filed any cogent material or document on record along with Exhibit –
77 showing the boundaries of the areas belonging to him or for that
matter the Defendant in the suit properties and in that view of the
matter the learned Trial Court has rejected the application made by
the Plaintiff.

¶20

5. I find no reason to interfere with the findings given in paragraph
No. 15 of the impugned order as allowing the application below
Exhibit-77 would necessarily determine the lis between the parties
without a trial. The order dated 22.10.2021 is sustained.

¶21

6. Writ Petition dismissed.

¶22

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶23

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISHKILAJE Date:2023.01.2514:37:17+0530

¶24

2 of 2

Sakharam Deu Patil v. Sanjeev Madhukar Bhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Deu Patil v. Sanjeev Madhukar Bhosale

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

Vikash Tolaram Chudiwala and Ors. Vs Manish Jhunjhunwala

Praveen Kumar S. Bohra Vs Meridian Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Padhuvitil Kunjippu Ismail Vs Meridian Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Lalita R. Solanki Vs Future Sector Land Developers LLP , Thr. Designated Partner Ashok Dhanraj Chordia and Ors.

Mahesh G Sugnani Vs Shantivan Co-Op Hou. Soc. Ltd. Pune

Smt. Madhavi Madhavrao Rajebahadur Since Dec Thr Her Legal Heirs Vs Dhanashri N Kotwal @ Dhananshri Narayan Rajebahadur