← Library
Bombay High CourtCAS/564/2015ca disposed off

Sayyad Mohsinali Afsarali And Others v. Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Tulshiram Gawai (Dead) Lrs Deceased Sanjabrao Tulshiram Gawai And Another

2017-02-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande2 pages

1402cas564.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.564 of 2015 In Second Appeal Stamp No.9544 of 2015 (Sayyad Mohsinali Sfsarali and others v. Smt. Purnabai wd/o Tulshiram Gawai (Dead), through LRs. Sanjabrao Tulshiram Gawai and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.S. Agrawal, Advocate, holding for Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Applicants/Appellants.

Shri Prasad Dharaskar, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Date : 14 th February, 2017 Civil Application (CAS) No.564 of 2015 :

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of three days caused in filing second appeal, is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of. Second Appeal Stamp No.9544 of 2015 :

Heard the learned counsels for the parties on merits of

1402cas564.15.odt the matter.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the Trial Court and the decree has been passed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of Gat No.37, admeasuring 1.61 HR of land, and the defendants are restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

The Courts below have relied upon the allotment letter and the report of the Tahsildar to hold that the leasehold rights were granted to the plaintiffs in respect of land admeasuring 1.61 HR out of Gat No.37. The possession over the property is proved to be that of the plaintiffs. In view of this, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The second appeal is dismissed.

Judge.

Lanjewar