Bombay High Court
Umesh Shamrao Lokhande vs Smt. Suman Babanrao Gulhane And ... on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 915 sa 84.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2022
Umesh Shamrao Lokhande
..VS..
Smt. Suman Babanrao Gulhane and ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : 23/03/2022.
By this appeal, the appellant (original plaintiff)
has challenged concurrent judgments and orders passed by
the two Courts below.
2. The appellant had filed the suit for declaration
and permanent injunction against the defendants who are his
relatives. It was the case of the appellant that, after the death
of Savitribai Govinda Lokhande, there were seven legal heirs,
who have allegedly orally entered into a mutual
understanding that the appellant or his brother Ganesh
Lokhande would cultivate the suit land and enjoy the
benefits.
3. According to the appellant, his brother Ganesh
Shamrao Lokhande cultivated the suit land and thereafter, he
executed a relinquishment Deed in favour of the appellant.
This is the basis of the claim raised by the appellant as
regards the ownership and possession of the suit property.
4. On the basis of such pleadings, relying solely on
oral mutual understanding, the appellant approached to the
Trial Court. The defendants failed to file their written
statement. The appellant led evidence in terms of the
2 915 sa 84.2022
pleadings on his behalf.
5. The Trial Court took into consideration the
material on the record and found that neither the appellant
nor his brother produced any document to show their right of
ownership in the suit property. The Trial Court found that
even if, the material placed on the record on behalf of the
appellant, in terms of his pleadings, was to be taken into
consideration, at the most, his brother was only cultivating
the land in terms of the alleged oral mutual understanding.
There was nothing to show that the legal heirs of the
deceased Savitribai Lokhande had relinquished their rights in
the suit property in favour of the brother of the appellant. In
fact, it was found that 7/12 extracts, as well as mutation
entries, showed the defendants as co-sharers. On this basis,
the suit was dismissed.
6. The Appellate Court also reached conclusions
against the appellant and being in agreement with the
findings rendered by the Trial Court. Although, Mr.
Deshpande sought to argue that since the defendants had
failed to file their written statements and there was no denial
of the claims of the appellant, the suit ought to have been
decreed, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has to
stand on his own legs. In the present case, the appellant/
original plaintiff miserably failed to prove with cogent
evidence and material, any iota of right in the suit property.
Therefore, the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts
below, do not deserves any interference. No substantial
question of law arises in the present case. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
JUDGE
24.03.2022 18:52
Trupti
