Disposed

Shri. Dhananjay Gulabrao Kanchan and Ors. v. Shri Sahebrao Madhav Kanchan and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2024WP/10499/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Boundary dispute between parties over ancestral property; Plaintiffs' application for appointment of Court Commissioner in RCS No.1848 of 2013 was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that it amounted to collection of further evidence. The High Court sustained the rejection, kept all contentions open, and directed expeditious disposal of the Suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting Commissioner application sustained; all contentions kept open; Trial Court directed to decide RCS No.1848/2013 within six months; no unnecessary adjournments.

Shri. Dhananjay Gulabrao Kanchan and Ors. Vs Shri Sahebrao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24.wp.10499.15.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10499 OF 2015

¶5

Dhananjay Gulabrao Kanchan and Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus

¶6

Sahebrao Madhav Kanchan and Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Vishwanath Suresh Talkute, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 7, 15 and 17.

¶9

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 07, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Pachundkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners and

¶12

Mr. Talkute, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 7, 17 and 17.

¶13

2. After allowing Civil Applications, Writ Petition is taken up for

¶14

hearing forthwith.

¶15

3. In the present case, it is seen that the Suit before the learned Trial Court is Regular Civil Suit No.1848 of 2013. The Suit is filed for declaration and perpetual injunction. Present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in Application below Exhibit “115” in RCS No.1848 of 2013 which is at Exhibit “H” - page No.85 of the

¶16

Writ Petition.

¶17

4. Plaintiffs filed the Application for appointment of Court

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

24.wp.10499.15.doc

¶20

Commissioner. The Suit property is the ancestral property and it is
claimed by Plaintiffs. The Suit property has been allotted to the
Plaintiffs by a registered partition deed. It is seen that the dispute
between the parties pertains to boundary dispute. It is averred by the
Plaintiffs that the property situated to the northern side of the Suit
property belonging to Defendant No.1 was sold and conveyed by
Defendant No.1 to the remaining Defendants, but at the time of the
said transaction, Defendant No.1 had not carried out measurement of
the Suit property. It is averred by the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1
had assured the Plaintiffs that if any encroachment is found over the
Suit land / property belonging to the Plaintiffs he will rectify the same.
It is averred that the Plaintiffs have got the Suit property / land
measured on 04.02.2013 and pursuant to that measurement, it is
found that the Defendants have encroached upon the Suit property.
Hence Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit for declaration and
perpetual injunction against the Defendants.

¶21

5. It is also revealed from the record that the Defendants have

¶22

objected to the measurement carried out by the Plaintiffs on
04.02.2013. According to Defendants, they are in possession of the
Suit property. Defendants have also averred that they have
undertaken construction activity. There is also dispute between the
parties with respect to the precise division of the old survey number
recorded in respect of Gat No.832 as also the revenue record

¶23

2 of 4

¶24

24.wp.10499.15.doc

¶25

pertaining to the same and the consolidation scheme being defective as
averred by the parties. The aforesaid issues are disputed questions of
facts.

¶26

6. In view of the above, Application filed by the Plaintiffs stands rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that appointment of Court Commissioner would amount to collection of further evidence. Considering the dispute asserted by the Plaintiffs and denied by the Defendants which is evident from the pleadings on record, I am of the opinion that the stand adopted by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the Application for appointment of Court Commissioner at this stage is clearly appropriate and hence no interference is warranted in the order passed below Exhibit “115”.

¶27

7. However without delineating and opining on any merits of the impugned order as also the submissions made by both the respective parties, the impugned order is sustained.

¶28

8. However, it is clarified that any observations and findings in the impugned order shall not influence the decision of the Trial Court in the Suit proceedings. It is seen that the observations and findings returned in the impugned order are clearly prima facie in nature. Hence all contentions of the Plaintiffs as also the Defendants are expressly kept open to be proven by each of the parties by leading cogent evidence with respect to their right, title and entitlement in

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

24.wp.10499.15.doc

¶31

their respective lands. After putting the suggestion that this Court
shall immediately expedite the adjudication of Regular Civil Suit
No.1848 of 2013 within a time bound programme, learned Advocates
after taking instructions have agreed to the same.

¶32

9. In view of the above directions and observations, learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.1848 of 2013 within a period of six months from today.

¶33

10. Parties to the Suit proceedings are directed by this Court not to seek any unnecessary adjournments to the parties unless it is utmost necessary due to any emergency / exigency.

¶34

11. Parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Suit proceedings.

¶35

12. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶36

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶37

Ajay

¶38

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.03.15 17:56:00 +0530

¶39

4 of 4

Shri. Dhananjay Gulabrao Kanchan and Ors. v. Shri Sahebrao Madhav Kanchan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dhananjay Gulabrao Kanchan and Ors. v. Shri Sahebrao Madhav Kanchan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Gopal Kurhade Vs Ramchandra Gopal Kurhade and Ors.

Vasant Tukaram Thite and Anr. Vs Gangaram Rangu Bhote and Ors.

Pandurang Baburao Dighe and Ors. Vs Sandeep Pandurang Dighe and Ors.

Prakash Sahadev Rane and Ors. Vs Vikas Sahadev Rane

Popat Dnyandeo Ghadage and Anr. Vs Santosh Bhagwat Keche and Ors.

Smt Usha Prabhakar Sahastrabuddhe Thr Poa Parsharam Govind Mandlik vs Aashish Bajirao Gondhale and Ors.