Sau. Ushatai W/O Trambak Mangle vs Mohan Motiram Labde And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 84 Bom

                                        1
                                                                     wp2180.14.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                 
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                        
                        Writ Petition No.2180 of 2014

      Sau. Ushatai w/o Trambak Mangle,
      Aged about 45 years,
      Occupation - Agriculturist,




                                                       
      R/o Jitapur, Tq. Akot,
      Distt. Akola.                                        ... Petitioner


           Versus




                                            
      1. Mohan Motiram Labde,
         Aged about 40 years,
                             
         Occupation - Agriculturist.
                            
      2. Tulshiram Kisan Raut,
         Aged about 65 years,
         Occupation - Agriculturst.
      


      3. Rajeshwar Tulshiram Raut,
         Aged about 42 years,
   



         Occupation - Agriculturst.

           All R/o Jitapur, Tq. Akot,
           Distt. Akola.                                   ...  Respondents





      Shri   Prashik   S.   Gawai,   Advocate,   instructed   by   Shri   R.L.Khapre, 
      Advocate for Petitioner.
      Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents.





                    Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

                    Dated  : 25    February, 2016
                                th
                                                  






                                                                          wp2180.14.odt

       Oral Judgment :




                                                                                      
                                                              

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The Trial Court rejected the application for grant of

temporary injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from

obstructing the way of the respondent-plaintiffs shown by letters 'B', 'C'

and 'D' through the boundary of Gat No.197 belonging to the

defendant. The lower Appellate Court has set aside the decision of the

Trial Court and has passed an order of injunction.

3. With the assistance of Shri Prashik S. Gawai, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have gone through the

judgments and orders delivered by both the Courts below. The Trial

Court relied upon the Talathi report, which stated that the way in

question is not recorded in the revenue record and there exists an

alternate way for the plaintiffs to approach their field from the eastern

side of Gat No.195. The lower Appellate Court has relied upon the

two sale-deeds dated 6-4-1955 and 4-1-1978, under which both the

plaintiffs have purchased the fields survey Nos.196 and 195.

wp2180.14.odt

The sale-deed contains a recital that there exists a way from the

northern boundary of Gat No.197 to approach the field of the

plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court has considered the Talathi report

and has held that the alleged alternate way is adjacent to the

river/stream and due to it, ditches have been created in the road and

it frequently collapses. The lower Appellate Court has considered the

findings recorded by the Trial Court. It has also taken into

consideration the sale-deeds, which were ignored by the Trial Court.

The view taken by the lower Appellate Court is a possible view of the

matter, which is based on the documents available on record, and,

therefore, does not call for interference.

5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands

discharged. No order as to costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar