Gangaram Dasu Gunjal vs Vishwanath @ Yusu Mankaji Chimane
2021 Latest Caselaw 10196 Bom

                                                                       sa-762-2012.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            SECOND APPEAL NO.762 OF 2012

                      GANGARAM S/O DASU GUNJAL
                                 VERSUS
               VISHWANATH ALIAS YUSU S/O MANKAJI CHIMANE

                                         ...
                   Mr. B. A. Darak, Advocate for the appellant.
           Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f Mr. V. D. Salunke for the respondent.
                                         ...

                                    CORAM        : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

                                    DATE         : 03.08.2021

ORDER :-


.         Present appeal is still pending for admission.               Hence, heard

learned Advocate Mr. B. A. Darak for the appellant and learned Advocate

Mr. Nitin Jagadale holding for learned Advocate Mr. V. D. Salunke for the

respondent. Perused the documents on record.

2. Apart from the judgments of both the Courts below and the

pleadings and evidence that was led before the Trial Court, photocopy

has been produced. Both the learned Advocates have made submissions

in support of their respective contentions.

3. Present appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular

Civil Suit No.47 of 2009 (Old Regular Civil Suit No.228 of 2005) before

sa-762-2012.odt

Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ghansawangi. He contended that the

Grampanchayat of village Tirthpuri, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna had

allotted him East-West land admeasuring 82 feet and South-North 27

feet, however, according to him, the defendant has forcibly taken

possession of western side 45 x 27 feet, which has been described by

boundaries in his suit and, therefore, he is praying possession of that

piece of land. The defendant had denied the claim of the plaintiff.

Defendant had already filed Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2000 against the

plaintiff in which temporary injunction was granted against the present

plaintiff, however, that suit came to be dismissed in default. According

to him, the Grampanchayat had also allotted him the property about 15

years ago prior to the suit in which he had raised construction in stone

and mud as well as three sheds made up in tin. That structure was

given number as old House No.1364/1 and the new number is

Grampanchayat House No.165.

4. After issues were framed, parties have led oral as well as

documentary evidence. The learned Trial Judge has held that plaintiff

has failed to prove that the suit plot was given by the Grampanchayat to

him in the year 1990 and since then he was in possession of the suit

land till 2000. It is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the

defendant had dispossessed him by taking advantage of ad-interim

sa-762-2012.odt

injunction passed in Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2000. The suit came to

be dismissed on 04.10.2010. The present appellant - plaintiff preferred

Regular Civil Appeal No.204 of 2010 before the learned Principal

District Judge, Jalna and the said appeal came to be dismissed on

15.03.2012. Hence, present second appeal.

5. Important point to be noted is that though the plaintiff had

contended that Grampanchayat had allotted him East-West 84 ft. x

South-North 27 ft. land in the year 1990, in his cross examination, he

has admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence to

prove the said fact. He could have definitely examined the

Grampanchayat official and could have definitely produced the

Grampanchayat record to show that such property was allotted to him.

The documentary evidence which he has produced is 8A extract of

Grampanchayat Tax Register for the year 2001-2002 at Exhibit-23. The

Grampanchayat House No.166 stands in the name of plaintiff, however,

it admeasures only 1029 sq. fts. There is no record produced by the

plaintiff regarding his allotment in the year 1990 and since 1990 there is

8A extract in his name showing the allotment of the land claimed by

him. Under such circumstance, both the Courts below have come to

correct conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. No

substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the

sa-762-2012.odt

Code of Civil Procedure is arising in this case and, therefore, at the

threshold, second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

scm