Shri. Martand S/O Karuji Kamble v. Fulabai @ Kuntabai Ganpat Ramteke And Others

(1) 17.wp.5485.2021...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5485 OF 2021 Martand s/o Karuji Kamble and others Vs.

Fulabai @ Kuntabai Ganpat Ramteke and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Seema Dhotre, Advocate for petitioners.

CORAM :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 23/12/2021 Heard Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel for the petitioners, who candidly admits that the petitioners and respondents are not related. That being the position, considering the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have a right in the property based upon the division as considered by para 8 of the impugned order in respect of the mutation entry was carried out on 18.11.1986, and the finding in para 12 that the defendants/petitioners were unable to place any document on record to show that the suit land were recorded in the name of the predecessors of the defendants and neither any explanation was forthcoming from their side as to how Govinda Rangari, Fulabai Ramteke or Wanchala were related to them nor was there any material to indicate the defendants/petitioners in possession of the suit lands, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, which takes into consideration

(2) 17.wp.5485.2021... the factual position based upon the documents produced by the plaintiffs in the absence of documents on part of the defendants to substantiate their claim. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, which considers the factual position in the back-ground of the documents placed on record, which have been brushed aside by the learned Trail Court merely on the ground that the entries in the 7/12 extract are for fiscal purposes ignoring the fact that the entries have an evidentiary value regarding the rights and possession as recorded therein, in case of rights created, by intestate succession. 2.

In view of the admission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the defendants are not related to the plaintiffs/respondents, the finding by the learned Trial Court that the suit lands were joint family properties also cannot be sustained and has rightly been considered so by the learned Appellate Court. I therefore, do not find any merit in the petition. 3.

The petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Sarkate SARKATE 19:09