1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2006 Ranjendrakumar s/o Kishanlalji Jaiswal .. APPELLANT VERSUS Yakub s/o Ijak Kamble & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of house property bearing CTS no. 490 ( old no. 570/2). Plaintiff contends that he has purchased the property by getting registered sale-deed executed from one Shantwan Kamble on 5-2-1983. It is his contention that in the year 1997, defendants have encroached upon the property from eastern side over an area to the extent of 15 ft. x 20 ft. It is also contended by plaintiff that his brother’s wife Minakshi 2 had earlier presented suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of part of the property, which came to be decreed. Defendant no. 1 Yakub had also presented a suit against Minakshi being Regular Civil Suit no. 459/1997 wherein title of defendant no. 1 Yakub was restricted to the extent of 30 ft. X 80 ft. out of the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that beyond the area declared by the civil court, defendants have no entitlement in respect of the suit property. Defendants are causing interference in possession of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff claims that he has been dispossessed out of some portion of the suit property. As such, he claims relief in respect of recovery of possession as well as mandatory injunction against defendants. 3 Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Defendants have denied adverse contentions raised by plaintiff. Defendants have denied title of the plaintiff over an area out of CTS no. 490 as claimed by plaintiff. According to them, one Bhaurao was the owner of the property and defendant purchased part of the property from said Bhaurao by getting executed registered sale-deed dt. 19-12-1977. Thus, defendants contend that they are in possession of the property in the capacity of owner. 3 4 Trial court after considering the rival contentions of the parties has recorded finding that plaintiff has failed to establish his title in respect of part of the property claimed by him. Findings of fact recorded by the trial court in respect of title of plaintiff in relation to the suit property has been confirmed by the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal no. 160/2001. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded finding that plaintiff has failed to establish his case and as such he is not entitled to get any relief. Findings of fact recorded by the courts below need not be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa95.06.odt 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9314 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 19604 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th September, 2009 1 These are the applications for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1 as well as for condoning delay in making the application as well as for setting aside order of abatement of appeal as against the concerned respondent. 2 Heard. Delay of 251 days occurred in presenting the civil application for setting aside order of abatement stands condoned. Legal heirs of deceased respondent no. 1 are permitted to be 5 brought on record. Delay in tendering application for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased respondent no. 1 also stands condoned. Record be amended accordingly. Both civil applications stand disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb / office /sa95.06.odt