Mahadeo S/O Champatrao Karluke And Another v. State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Wardha And Others

1 sa301.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO.301 OF 2018 (Mahadeo s/o Champatrao Karluke and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through its Collector, Wardha and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, Counsel for the appellants. CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 29-03-2019 Heard Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the appellants.

2.

The appellants, who are original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit 160/2010 are challenging the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court and the dismissal of the Regular Civil Appeal 160/2010 by the Principal District Judge, Wardha.

3.

The property in dispute is an agricultural field which according to the plaintiffs is assigned Survey 365/1. The plaintiffs contend that the said agricultural field is purchased by plaintiff 1 by sale-deed dated 07-4-1998. The case of the plaintiffs is that in collusion with the Talathi, defendants 2 and 3 manipulated the revenue record to show that the agricultural field purchased by defendants 2 and 3 in the year 2003 is agricultural field bearing Survey 365/1.

2 sa301.18 4.

Concededly, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 have purchased their respective lands from the same vendor. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff 1 has not purchased field Survey 365/1 and has, as a fact, purchased a different suit field Survey 365/3. The finding of fact recorded concurrently is unexceptionable. Be it noted that plaintiff 1-Mahadeo admitted during the cross-examination that field Survey 365/1 is in possession of defendants 2 and 3. 5.

The appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE adgokar