1. Sushilabai Vishnu Powar And ORS. v. 1. Ananda Krishna Bodake And ANR.

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 1991

1. Sushilabai w/o. Vishnu Powar Age 47 years, occ. Household r/o. Shendur, Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur

2. Gopal Vishnu Powar Age 25 years, occ. Education R/o. Shendur, Taluka Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur

3. Ashok Vishnu Powar, age 21 R/o. Shendur, Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.

.. Appellants.

(Org. Opponents Nos. 1 to 3) V/s

1. Ananda Krishna Bodke since deceased by his legal heirs and representatives 1a. Jaising Ananda Bodke age - adult 1b. Uday Ananda Bodke age - adult 1c. Smt. Banubai Ananda Bodke Age adult.

All residing at Shendur, Tal. Kagal

2/3 Dist. Kolhapur.

2. Chandar Dattu Kasote deceased Age 55, R/o. Shendur, Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur, 2a. Namdeo Chandar Kasote 2b. Shashikant Chandar Kasote Both Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur, Mr. R.S. Datar, for Appellants.

Mr. P.D. Dalvi, for Respondents No.1(a) to 1(c), 2A & 2B. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Date : 05th March, 2015 P.C.

1.

This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the application filed by original respondents No.1 & 2 under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside sale of the property in question in public auction towards the satisfaction of Regular Darkhast No.66 of 1981 for execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.92 of 1971. The executing Court by it's order dated 1613 of 1985 allowed the application holding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the property having purchased the same for valuable consideration from Vishnu Balwant Powar, original opponent No.4. The appeal

3/3 preferred therefrom being Regular Civil Appeal No.272 of 1985 was dismissed by the District Court by it's order dated 16th February, 1990. 2.

Appellants had opposed the application alleging that the said deed was bogus and the respondents have no title to the suit property. This claim of the appellants has already been negatived with dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 1977 filed by them interalia to challenge the sale in favour of the respondents. Their appeal to the District Court as well as the Second Appeal to this Court has failed. In the circumstance, their challenge to the impugned orders on the same ground cannot be sustained. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed.

(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)