Bombay High Court
Balaprasad Motilal Zanwar, Died ... vs Ashabai Lalchand Bora And Ors on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 901-SA-136-12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 SECOND APPEAL NO.136 OF 2012
WITH CA/2079/2012 IN SA/136/2012
1. Balaprasad s/o Motilal Zanwar,
Died through its L.R's.
1/1. Omprakash S/o Balaprasad Zanwar,
Age : 40 years, occu. Business,
1/2. Jaiprakash S/o Balaprasad Zanwar,
Age: 38 years, Occu. Business,
1/3. Kantaprasad s/o Balaprasad Zanwar,
Age: 35 years, Occu. Business,
1/4. Smt. Ramkuwarbai W/o Balaprasad Zanwar,
Age: 62 years, Occu. Household.
All R/o Subhash Chowk, Parli-vaijnath,
Ta. Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Ashabai W/o Lalchand Bora,
Age: 68 years, Occu. Household,
R/o: Parli-Vaijnath, Tq. Parli-Vaijnath,
Dist. Beed.
2. Hiralal s/o Lalchand Bora,
Age: 49 years, Occu. Business,
R/o: Parli-Vaijnath Tq. Parli-Vaijnath,
Dist. Beed.
3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. Amol S. Sawant
Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2
Mr. Ganesh Mohekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
...
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:37:44 :::
2 901-SA-136-12.odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 16th MARCH, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
This is an appeal arising out of the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below in the suit filed by the plaintiffs-
respondents for declaration of ownership as regards four plots bearing
House No. 1070, 1070/6, ward No. 5 out of Survey No. 32 situated at
Parli-Vaijnath.
2. I have heard learned respective counsel for parties.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as follows (Parties are
referred as per their status in the suit.)
The plaintiff - Ashabai, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein,
filed a suit for declaration of ownership in respect of four plots
bearing House No. 1070, 1070/6, ward No. 5 out of Survey No. 32
situated at Parli-Vaijnath and rectification in municipal record.
. The defendant No.2 has filed written statement and turned
down all the materials allegations set out in the plaint. The suit
proceeded ex-parte against defendant No.1.
. The learned trial Court, after considering the facts and
oral as well as documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit, and
declared the plaintiffs as owner of the suit property, vide Judgement
and decree dated 30-04-2001. Against the said Judgment and decree,
the defendant preferred an appeal bearing RCA No. 159 of 2001. The
said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge-2,
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:37:44 :::
3 901-SA-136-12.odt
Ambejogai, District Beed, vide Judgment and order, dated 01-12-2011,
confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. The said
Judgment and order is under challenge in the present appeal.
4. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants
argues that both the Courts below are not justified in ignoring the
outcome of Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 592
of 1988, wherein it has been held by the Civil Court that Motilal and
defendant No. 2 - Balaprasad are joint owners of the plots, which are
subject-matter of this appeal. It is submitted that once a judicial
pronouncement is there and entitlement of defendant No. 2 to the
extent of one half (½) share in the plot-in-dispute is held, the said
entitlement cannot be taken away by ignoring said judicial
pronouncement.
Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants
draws attention of this Court to the Judgment and Decree passed in
Regular Civil Suit No. 592 of 1988.
5. On perusal of said Judgment and Decree, it is amply clear
that the said judgment and decree was in respect of the plots/property
bearing City Survey No. No. 4117, 3964 and 394. Undisputedly, in the
present proceeding suit plots are plots bearing No. 1070, 1070/6,
ward No. 5 out of Survey No. 32 situated at Parli-Vaijnath.
6. From perusal of the record, there is nothing to show that
suit plots in Regular Civil Suit No. 592 of 1988 and suit plots in the
present proceeding are the same. Even no pleadings are made in the
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:37:44 :::
4 901-SA-136-12.odt
written statement filed by defendant No. 2 - Balaprasad, who was
plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 592 of 1988 in that regard.
7. In absence of any material produced by defendant No. 2 -
Balaprasad to show that the plots in both the proceedings i.e. Regular
Civil Suit No. 592 of 1988 and in present proceeding, are one and the
same, I have no hesitation to hold that both the Courts below have
rightly discarded the Judgment and Decree passed in the Regular Civil
Suit No. 592 of 1988 filed by Balaprasad.
8. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded
by both the Courts below and in absence of any perversity in the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below, moreover, in
absence of any substantial question of law involved in present matter,
the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the
following order :-
ORDER
i. The Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, nothing survives
for consideration in civil application for stay, the same
stands disposed of, accordingly.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
mtk
