Shivajirao Madhavrao Ghorpade vs Vikas Balaso Patil And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3957 Bom

                                                                        907-sa-200-2018.doc
Pallavi

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     SECOND APPEAL NO.200 OF 2018

          Shivajirao Madhavrao Ghorpade                                  ...Appellant
               Versus
          Vikas Balaso Patil and Ors.                                    ...Respondents

                Mr. Bhushan Mandlik i/b. S.S. Patwardhan, for the Appellant.
                Mr. P.G. Lad a/w Ms. Sayli Apte, Shreya Shah, for the Respondent
                 No.1.

                                             CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE : 20th APRIL 2023 P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Mandlik, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant and Mr. Lad, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondents.

2. The Appellant is the original plaintiff and filed Reg. Civil Suit

No.15 of 1994 seeking declaration and injunction. He has sought

declaration that he has become the owner of the suit property and

also that he is the licensee of the suit property.

3. The learned Trial Court granted injunction by holding that his

possession is lawful. As far as reliefs regarding declaration, the

learned Trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. The learned First Appellate Court has recorded the finding of

907-sa-200-2018.doc Pallavi

fact in paragraph 20 and 28 that the plaintiff had paid Rs.18,000/- to

Balaso Patil i.e. father of the Respondents and in lieu of the same, the

plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property.

5. The learned First Appellate Court in spite of recording said

finding of fact further observed in paragraph 36 that the possession

of the plaintiff cannot be characterized as 'lawful possession'.

Therefore, the Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial

question of law:

Whether the finding of the learned First Appellate Court that the possession of the plaintiff cannot be termed as lawful possession is contrary to the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in paragraphs 20 and 28 of the impugned judgment wherein specific finding is recorded that plaintiff has paid Rs.18,000/- to Balaso Patil and in lieu of the same, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property?

6. Mr. Lad, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1

waives service on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]