Tukaram Ganpat Pawar vs Pandurang Raoji Patil And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1232 Bom

                                                                         sr.17.sa.844.15.doc


Harish
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               SECOND APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015


          Tukaram Ganpat Pawar                               ...Appellant
                  V/s.
          Pandurang Raoji Patil & Anr.                       ...Respondents

          Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the Appellant.
          Mr. D. W. Bhosale, for the Respondents.

                                        CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE : 06th FEBRUARY, 2023

P.C.:

1. The appellant is the Original Defendant. By the present

Appeal the Appellant is challenging the Judgment and

Decree dated 23rd May, 2008 passed by the learned Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Sangola in Regular Civil Suit No. 25

of 2002. The Defendant challenged the said Judgment and

Decree by fling Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2008 and the

learned First Appellant Court dismissed the said Appeal by

Judgment and Decree dated 23rd February, 2015.

2. By the said Judgment and Decree, the learned Trial

Court decreed the Suit fled by the Respondents i.e. Plaintiffs.

The learned trial Court has held that the Plaintiffs proved

sr.17.sa.844.15.doc

their title over the suit property and possession over certain

portion of the suit property. It has been held that the

Defendant made encroachment on 20-Ares of land over the

Suit Property and therefore, granted decree of possession.

3. Mr. Surel Shah, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant submitted that both the Courts have concurrently

held that the Plaintiffs proved their title over the suit

property and possession over certain portion of the suit

property. It has been held that the Defendant made

encroachment on 20-Ares of land over the Suit Property. By

the said concurrent fnding, the Suit was decreed and the

Appeal fled by the Respondents has been dismissed. He

submitted that the fndings recorded by the learned Courts

are contrary to the evidence on record and therefore,

following substantial question of law is raised in the Second

Appeal;

"Whether the fndings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are in accordance with the evidence on record?"

4. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Bhosale, learned counsel appearing

for the Respondents submitted that both the Courts after

considering the evidence on record have concurrently found

sr.17.sa.844.15.doc

against the Appellant and therefore, there is no substance in

the substantial question of law raised by Mr. Surel Shah,

learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit fled by the

Respondents i.e. Plaintiffs and the challenge to the said

Judgment and Decree failed before the learned Trial

Appellate Court.

6. Perusal of the Judgments of both the Courts show that

by considering the evidence on record both the Courts have

concurrently found that, the Plaintiffs proved their title over

the suit property and possession over certain portion of the

suit property. It has been held that the Defendant made

encroachment on 20-Ares of land over the Suit Property.

Both the Courts have examined the evidence on record in

detail and recorded the concurrent fndings of fact.

7. Therefore, there is no substance in the substantial

question of law as submitted by Mr. Surel Shah, learned

counsel appearing for the Appellant. Therefore, the Second

appeal is dismissed however, with no order as to costs.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)