Girish S/O Bhagwan Sukhdeve v. Chitralekha S/O Vasudev Lanjewar And Others
sa231.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.231/2019 Girish s/o Bhagwan Sukhdeve .vs. Chitralekha s/o Vasudeo Lanjwar & ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. Y. J. Maheshwari, Advocate holding for Mr. S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for appellant.
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : JULY 4, 2019 Heard Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel holding for Mr. Bhutada, learned counsel for the appellant. The present second appeal is filed by the defendant against whom concurrent findings of facts are recorded by the Courts below holding that he has no right to have ingress to his agricultural field i.e. Gat No.451, through agricultural field Gat No.450 owned by the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit was not maintainable for want of necessary parties. The said aspect, in my view, both the Courts have considered very elaborately and rightly found that the suit cannot be dismissed on the said ground. Admittedly, the present appellant filed the proceedings before Tahsildar against the plaintiff, who claimed that his way was obstructed which he was using to go to Gat No. 452. Admittedly, in the said proceedings, the plaintiffs were not the parties. Exh-17 is a map, which is heavily relied upon by the present defendant to show that
sa231.19.odt the defendant is having right of approach through Gat No.50. In my view, Exh.-17 would not be binding on the plaintiffs when admittedly, they were not parties in the proceedings before Tahsildar and before Tahsildar, the appellant filed proceedings to point out that his right of way was obstructed by one Mr. Milind.
On appreciation of facts, the Court found that the appellant is having alternate way also to approach to his field Gat No. 451. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale