Wasudev Bhagwan Chopade (Deceased) Smt. Narmadabai Wasudev Chopade And Others v. Manohar Totaram Nayase

sa582.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO.582/2017 Wasudeo Bhagwan Chopade (Dead) thr. Smt. Narmadabai Wasudeo Chopade & Ors. ..vs.. Manohar Totaram Nayase _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. B. Dafle, Advocate holding for Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for appellants.

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 6, 2017 1.

Heard Mr. Dafle, Advocate holding for Mr.Patil, learned counsel for appellants. Counsel for the respondent is absent though served.

2.

The present second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2016 passed by District Judge-I Link Court, Malkapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 115/2012. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate Court thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2005 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Nandura. 3.

The suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent against the appellants. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are causing obstruction in the house and enjoyment of the roads and are trying to make encroachment over the

sa582.17.odt same. The suit was decreed. By the judgment and decree, the learned Judge of the trial Court declared that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit house and the defendants being no right to cause obstruction to his way running towards West-East of his house. The defendants were also directed to remove fencing placed on the Eastern road. Being aggrieved thereby, the appeal was filed. The appellate Court, after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants, found that the original plaintiff has established that there exists a road towards East of his house. The learned appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and also the evidence of the defendant, found that there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

4.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusal of the evidence and the impugned judgment, it is clear that the present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The findings are in respect of the facts, which in my view are correctly recorded by both the Courts below. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. The appeal is therefore rejected. No order as to costs.

JUDGE kahale