Dismissed

Vasantrao Naryanrao Joshi v. Sukhdeo Shankar Sabale and Other

Bombay HC25 Jan 2024SA/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sued for possession of House No.72 alleging the auction purchaser of his mortgaged House No.70 also encroached upon it. Courts below concurrently found on a TILR commissioner's report that House No.72 remained in plaintiff's possession. The High Court found no perversity and no substantial question of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vasantrao Naryanrao Joshi vs Sukhdeo Shankar Sabale and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

-1- 6.SA.09.2024.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:2274

¶3

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

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2024

¶5

Vasantrao Narayanrao Joshi

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sukhdeo Shankar Sabale & Anr.

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

********************************************************************************************** Mr. K.R. Bhise, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶11

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶12

. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶13

The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff/appellant has not proved that defendant No.1 took illegal possession of the property bearing House No.72 (Old No.63), admeasuring 4120 sq. feet, situated at village Ramgaon Rameshwar, Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶14

Learned advocate submits that the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on 6^th July, 2023, without considering the evidence on record. Learned advocate submits that the failure to properly appreciate the evidence on record has resulted into illegality/perversity and, as such, the issue is required to be adjudicated upon in the second appeal.

¶15

-2- 6.SA.09.2024.odt

¶16

The appellant filed the suit for possession of House No.72 (Old No.63), admeasuring 4120 sq. feet. The house is described in the plaint. It is contended that House No.70 (Old No.62) was mortgaged by him with respondent No.2-Bank. The loan amount could not be repaid and, therefore, the property was auctioned. In the said auction, defendant No.1 purchased the same. It was alleged that defendant No.1, as an auction purchaser, took possession not only of house property bearing No.70 but also of house property bearing No.72 belonging to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 contended that in the auction, he purchased the house property bearing No.70, admeasuring 3600 sq. feet, and he has been in possession of the same. He denied the claim of the plaintiff that he encroached upon the house property bearing No.72. According to him, the house property bearing No.72 has been in possession of the plaintiff.

¶17

The parties adduced the evidence. Learned Judge of the Trial Court had appointed Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Darwha, as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the land and for demarcation of the property, which was in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant. The TILR filed the report at Exh.67. The TILR stated in the report that defendant No.1 is in possession of the property, admeasuring 3601 sq. feet, and the plaintiff is in possession of the property, admeasuring 3592.34 sq. feet. The TILR further stated that the remaining part of the original property bearing No. 286, namely 642 sq. feet, is in possession of one Devram Sitaram Raut. It is undisputed that the original property bearing No.286

¶18

-3- 6.SA.09.2024.odt

¶19

was admeasuring 727.7 sq. mtrs. The courts below found that the property possessed by defendant No.1 is House No.70, admeasuring 3601 sq. feet and the remaining property, i.e. house property bearing No.72 was in possession of the plaintiff. It is seen that the finding of facts are based on the evidence on record. The courts below have concurrently held that the house property bearing No.72 is still in possession of the plaintiff.

¶20

On going through the record, particularly the reasons recorded by the courts below, I am satisfied that there was no illegality or perversity in the findings. The findings are based on the evidence on record. As such, I conclude that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶21

Vijay

¶22

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2024 18:31:16

Vasantrao Naryanrao Joshi v. Sukhdeo Shankar Sabale and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vasantrao Naryanrao Joshi v. Sukhdeo Shankar Sabale and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sau. Sandhya Vilas Mode and Another Vs Tushar Pandit Chincholkar and Others

Pradnya W/O Abhijit Mendhe @ Miss. Pradnya D/o Nardatta Alone vs Shri. Abhijit Suresh Mendhe

Govindo Shaw @ Karmarkar S/O Laxman Shaw and Another vs Partho S/O Ashok Kumar Roy

Vasant Sambhashiv Shastrakar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Kavishwar S.O Vasantarao Shastrakar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its District Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Shri Khanodba Deosthan Committee, Nagpur the Public Trust Thr. Adv. N.N. Thengre Vs Adv. Shri M. L. Sharma (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Kamladevi Wd/O M. Sharma and Others

Mr. Vilas S/O Hari Herode and Another Vs Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai (Cst)