Shri. Kumar Bhupal Malagave vs Shri. Sagar Appa Malagave
2022 Latest Caselaw 12453 Bom

                                                     903 sa 728.2022.doc


Dusane

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             SECOND APPEAL NO.728 OF 2022
                         WITH
         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20036 OF 2022



Shri. Kumar Bhupal Malagave             ...Appellant
        V/s.
Shri. Sagar Appa Malagave               ...Respondent



Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for Respondent.

                        CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 24th NOVEMBER, 2022

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Savagave, learned Advocate appearing for

Appellant and Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing for

Respondent.

2. By way of this Second Appeal, Appellant is challenging the

legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 23 rd

August 2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of 2012 as well

as judgment and decree dated 5th August 2022 passed by the

learned District Judge-1, Jaysingpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5

of 2019. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed said suit for eviction.

903 sa 728.2022.doc

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the

Respondent has proved the ownership of the suit property. The

only contention raised by learned Advocate appearing for the

Appellant is that the Appellant is in adverse possession of the

suit property.

3. To substantiate this contention, he has relied on paragraph

7 of the written statement. In paragraph 7 of the written

statement, the Appellant has come up with a case that the suit

property was purchased by Respondent on 25 th November 1991

and immediately the Appellant has raised an objection to the

same and denied the ownership of Respondent. The Appellant

has been extensively cross-examined on these aspects.

4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that for proving the

adverse possession, Appellant has to accept that the Respondent

is owner of the suit property and then he has to establish his

adverse possession. Perusal of written statement shows that in

fact the Appellant was denying that the Respondent is the owner

of the suit property.

5. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the Appellant

has failed to prove his claim of adverse possession. Hence, in

this Second Appeal there is no substantial question of law

involved.

6. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.

903 sa 728.2022.doc

7. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives

in the Interim Application and same is also disposed of.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2022.12.02 11:20:52 +0530