Bombay High Court
Deepak S/O Ramchandra Bhong vs Sanjay Devidas Bukkawar And ... on 11 December, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Second Appeal No. 33 of 2017
with
Second Appeal St. 8858 of 2017
with
Second Appeal St. No. 26186 of 2016
A. Second Appeal No. 33 of 2017 :
Sanjay Devidas Bukkawar
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Ram Mandir Ward,
Ghatanji,
Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Appellant
Org. Deft. No.2
Versus
1. Sau. Archana Suresh
Kudegawe,
aged about 37 years,
occupation - Household,
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:46 :::
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
2
2. Hirakant Pandurang
Kudegawe,
aged about 40 years,
occupation - Jweller,
3. Smt. Lalitabai Ramchandra
Bhong,
aged about 77 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
....Org. Plaintiffs.
4. Dipak Ramchandra Bhong,
aged about 52 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
....Org. Deft. No.1.
all residents of Ghatanji,
Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. S. S. Bhalerao, Adv., for the appellant.
Mr. P. S. Kadam, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
None for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
*****
B. Second Appeal St. No. 8858 of 2017 :
Deepak son of Ramchandra Bhong,
aged about 57 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Ambadevi Ward,
Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji,
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:46 :::
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
3
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Appellant
Org. Deft. No.1
Versus
1. Sanjay Devidas Bukkawar,
aged about 49 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Vyankatesh Jweller,
Main Road, Ghatanji,
Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
....Org. Plaintiff.
2. Hirakant Pandurang
Kudeganwe,
aged about 33 years,
occupation - Jweller,
3. Archana Suresh Kudeganwe,
aged about 25 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
....Org. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3
respondent nos. 2 & 3 residents
of C/o Prafulla Gande,
opp : Ram Mandir,
Ghatanji,
Tq. Ghatanji, Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Respondents.
*****
None for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. Bhalerao, Adv., for respondent no.1.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:46 :::
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
4
Mr. P. S. Kadam, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
*****
C. Second Appeal St. No. 26186 of 2016 :
1. Sau. Archana wife of Suresh
Kudegawe,
aged about 37 years,
occupation - household,
2. Hirakant son of Pandurang
Kudegawe,
aged about 40 years,
occupation - Jweler,
nos. 1 and 2 residents of
Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Appellants
Org. Pffls.
Versus
1. Dipak son of Ramchandra Bhong,
aged about 59 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Ram Mandir Ward,
Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Sanjay son of Devidas Bukkawar,
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Private Business,
resident of Shivaji Ward,
Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:46 :::
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
5
....Org. Defendants.
3. Smt. Lalitabai widow of Ramchandra
Bhong,
aged about 77 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Shivaji Ward,
Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
....Org. Plaintiff No.3 ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. P. S. Kadam, Adv., for the appellants.
None for respondent no.1.
Mr. S. S. Bhalerao, Adv., for respondent no.2.
None for respondent no.3.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 11th December, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
01. Admit. In view of Report of the Mediator dated 16th
November, 2017, the appeals are taken up for disposal.
02. Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was
sas33.17,8858.17&26186.16
dismissed by the Trial Court. The appellate Court partly allowed the
appeal filed by the original plaintiffs and partly decreed the suit.
During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have agreed to
resolve their disputes and have accordingly entered into an agreement
that is duly signed by all parties on 13th November, 2017.
03. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of
Agreement dated 13th November, 2017 that is duly signed by all
parties and their learned counsel. Decree be drawn in terms of said
compromise. Respective appellants would be entitled for refund of
Court Fees as per Rules. No costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
