Bombay High Court
Shri. Martand S/O Karuji Kamble vs Fulabai @ Kuntabai Ganpat Ramteke ... on 23 December, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 17.wp.5485.2021...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5485 OF 2021
Martand s/o Karuji Kamble and others
Vs.
Fulabai @ Kuntabai Ganpat Ramteke and others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Seema Dhotre, Advocate for petitioners.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 23/12/2021
Heard Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel for the
petitioners, who candidly admits that the petitioners and
respondents are not related. That being the position,
considering the findings recorded by the learned
Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have a right in the
property based upon the division as considered by para 8
of the impugned order in respect of the mutation entry
was carried out on 18.11.1986, and the finding in para
12 that the defendants/petitioners were unable to place
any document on record to show that the suit land were
recorded in the name of the predecessors of the
defendants and neither any explanation was forthcoming
from their side as to how Govinda Rangari, Fulabai
Ramteke or Wanchala were related to them nor was there
any material to indicate the defendants/petitioners in
possession of the suit lands, I do not see any reason to
interfere in the impugned Judgment passed by the
learned Appellate Court, which takes into consideration
(2) 17.wp.5485.2021...
the factual position based upon the documents produced
by the plaintiffs in the absence of documents on part of
the defendants to substantiate their claim. Therefore,
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, which
considers the factual position in the back-ground of the
documents placed on record, which have been brushed
aside by the learned Trail Court merely on the ground
that the entries in the 7/12 extract are for fiscal purposes
ignoring the fact that the entries have an evidentiary
value regarding the rights and possession as recorded
therein, in case of rights created, by intestate succession.
2. In view of the admission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the
defendants are not related to the plaintiffs/respondents,
the finding by the learned Trial Court that the suit lands
were joint family properties also cannot be sustained and
has rightly been considered so by the learned Appellate
Court. I therefore, do not find any merit in the petition.
3. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:23.12.2021
19:09
