Chandrakalabai Shivaji Khedkar vs Shaikh Sattar Baba Miyan
2017 Latest Caselaw 7798 Bom

                                         1                             CA 12392-2017

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABA       


                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12392 of 2017
                                   IN
                SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.  21241 OF 2017


 Chandrakalabai Shivaji Khedkar
 age 51 years occupation household 
 R/o Narala, Paithan Taluka Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                  VERSUS

 Shaikh Sattar Baba Miyan
 age 77 years occupation Pensioner 
 R/o Hamalwada, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad                                           
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT


 Mr. Girish V. Wani,  Advocate for petitioner


                                                      CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. 

DATE :4th October, 2017

ORAL ORDER :

This application is by original plaintiff seeking condonation of

delay of 1897 days caused in preferring present Second Appeal.

2. Cause cited for condonation of delay is that the appellant

was not keeping good health and, as such, the delay of about more than

five years is caused in preferring present Second Appeal.

2 CA 12392-2017

3. In addition, Shri Wani, learned Counsel for the appellant,

who is heard on merit, submits that both the Courts below have failed to

appreciate the factum of possession of the present appellant,

particularly, when the First Appellate Court recorded that the title of the

present appellant vide Exh. 58 sale deed dated February 28, 1989, was

proved.

4. So far as the issue of title is concerned, the parties to the

appeal have admitted title of the present appellant to the suit property,

however, appellant has failed to establish the exact location of the

property as she was unable to prove boundaries of her property, as is

apparent from her evidence, particularly, her cross-examination.

5. There are concurrent findings recoded by both the Courts

below on the issue of possession and entitlement for injunction though

the First Appellate Court has recorded finding of title in favour of present

appellant.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, in my opinion, neither case for

condonation of delay nor the case on merit is made out. Appeal, as

such, fails and stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) pjm