Raghunath Narasu Kamble vs Kashinath Narasu Kamble And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5106 Bom

                                                                       12-SA-961-2007.odt
           Digitally
           signed by
           Shambhavi
Shambhavi N. Shivgan
N. Shivgan Date:            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           2021.03.25
           14:48:56
           +0530
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  SECOND APPEAL NO.961 OF 2007

                        Raghunath Narasu Kamble                 ... Appellant
                             Vs
                        Kashinath Narasu Kamble and
                        Ors.                                  ... Respondents
                                                 ...

Mr. J.P.Kharge and S.S.Sakhare for the Appellant. Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1F.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2 Defendant No.1, in the Regular Civil Suit No.157

of 2000 has preferred this appeal, against the concurrent

findings of the facts. Kashinath Narsu Kamble, predecessore

inetitle of the respondent nos.1A to 1F instituted the subject

suit, for partition of the property described in plaint,

paragraphs 1A (House) and 1B. The suit was decreed on

Shivgan 1/3 12-SA-961-2007.odt

14th March, 2000. Decree was confirmed in Regular Civil

Appeal No.157 of 2000, against which this appeal is

preferred. Dispute, centres around, the partition of the

house property, constructed on Western portion of CTS

No.236, 'Sanad' in respect of which was granted by the

State of Maharashtra. Evidence suggests, since before

granting 'sanad', appellant's father had constructed suit

house and was being occupied by father and his brothers.

Also, cousins, of the appellant, had constructed houses i.e.

house no.558/2, 559/2, 561/2 and 543/2 on CTS 236 as is

evident from tax assessment extracts. Besides, it appears

that one, Nana Tayappa, had filed Civil Suit No.143 of 1988

against the appellant for perpetual injunction. Appellant's

depositions, in the said suit were produced at Exhibits 66

and 66A wherein appellant, had admitted the CTS No.236

(Sanad Land) was allotted to his father. Appellant had also,

admitted, that his four brothers were occupying, suit house

constructed on the CTS No.236. In consideration of these

admissions, the learned Trial Court has held, that, the

Shivgan 2/3 12-SA-961-2007.odt

defendant had not proved, that the suit property described

in Paragraph 1A was exclusively allotted to him. The

learned Appellate Court has afrmed the findings answered

against the issue no.1.

3 In consideration of the facts of the case and

evidence on record, in my view, appeal does not give rise to

any substantial question of law. Appeal is dismissed.

                            (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)




Shivgan                                                    3/3