Mr. Baburao Nana Jadahv And Ors vs Mr. Haridas Ramchandra Gurav ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12961 Bom

                                                                        906-IA-30091-2022.doc


                      Arjun


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30091 OF 2022
                                                    IN
ARJUN                                   SECOND APPEAL NO.822 OF 2022
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR              Mr. Baburao Nana Jadhav & Ors.                ...Applicants
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2022.12.13                     Versus
18:58:39 +0530


                      Mr. Haridas Ramchandra Gurav                  ...Respondents
                      (Since Deceased Through LR's)
                      Mr. Ashok Haridas Gurav & Ors.


                      Mr. V. S. Talkute, for the Applicants.
                      Mr. Dilip Bodake, for Respondent Nos. 1A, 2A, 3, 5A2, 6, 7A.

                                               CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2022

P.C.:

1. Mr. V. S. Talkute, learned counsel appearing for the

Applicants states that following substantial questions of law

are involved in the Second Appeal :

"1. Whether the fndings of the Ld. First Appellate Court that the Respondent-Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are Pujaris of the Hill Temple since their forefathers, and have a right to take offerings given by the people at the time of Puja, is without evidence and based upon irrelevant

906-IA-30091-2022.doc

and inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore suffers from the element of the vice of perversity and illegality?

2. Whether the fndings of the Ld. First Appellate Court that the Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 5 have the right to maintain the cleanliness of deity at the Hill Temple is also without legal and admissible evidence and therefore suffers from the vice of perversity and illegality?

3. Whether the fndings of the Ld. First Appellate Court that the Respondent-Plaintiff No. 6 has the right to take the skin of sacrifced goats, is also without legal and admissible evidence and therefore suffers from the element of perversity and illegality?

4. Whether the fndings of the Ld. First Appellate Court that the Respondent-Plaintiff No. 7 has the right to cut goats that are sacrifced for deity is also without legal admissible evidence?

12. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court is justifed in law in upsetting the well-reasoned Judgment of the Ld. Trial Court without even discussing and/or assessing the oral and documentary evidence considered by the Ld. Trial Court for recording the fndings in favour of the Appellants and therefore the Ld. First Appellate Court committed a serious error in exercising jurisdiction vested in it by Section 96 r/w. O. XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure?"

906-IA-30091-2022.doc

2. Subject to hearing Mr. Dilip Bodke, learned counsel who

appears for some of the Respondents, there is some

substance in the contention raised by Mr. Talkute. Hence, ad-

interim relief in terms of order dated 12 th September, 2022

passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-01, Satara below

Exhibit 102 in Reg. Civil Appeal No.281 of 2016 is continued

till the next date.

3. Stand over to 20th December, 2022 at 2:30 p.m.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)