← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1093/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Mandabai Adinath Tagad Through General Power Of Attorney Holdeer A S Tagad v. Vitthal Bhanudas Nangare And Another

2018-01-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2018 MANDABAI ADINATH TAGAD

VERSUS

VITTHAL BHANUDAS NANGARE AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Kakde Yuvraj V. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: January 30, 2018 ...

PER COURT :- 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2017, by which, the trial Court has rejected application Exhibit 60 filed by the petitioner / plaintiff praying for leave to lead secondary evidence with regard to a sale deed that was registered on 14.7.2006 and is said to have been lost. The petitioner has obtained a certified copy of the said sale deed from the Sub-Registrar's office, where the sale deed was registered.

2.

Contention of the petitioner is that she has filed the suit purely for causing measurement of the suit land owned and possessed by her, to identify the encroachment and for recovery of possession of the encroached area.

akl/d

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 2 - WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2018 3.

In the Written Statement, filed by the defendants, it is stated in paragraph No.11, which starts with the opening sentence, " खरीपिरिसथती अशीआहेकी," that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land 5-6 years' ago and the bandh on the said suit land exists prior to her purchasing the said land.

4.

This aspect has been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order and it is concluded that the factum of the plaintiff having purchased and possessed the suit land is not a dispute before the trial Court and no issue to that extent has therefore, been framed. In this backdrop, the trial Court concluded that when the plaintiff's purchasing of the suit land is not a matter of dispute, there is no reason to record secondary evidence with regard to the sale deed dated 14.7.2006.

5.

Considering the above observations and the contents of paragraph No.11, I do not think that the issue of the petitioner having purchased the suit land is a matter of dispute before the trial Court. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This petition is, therefore, disposed off. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d