Tukaram Ganpat Pawar vs Pandurang Raoji Patil And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1233 Bom

                                                                         sr.17.sa.843.15.doc


Harish
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               SECOND APPEAL NO. 843 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 Plaintiff. He is challenging

the Judgment and Decree dated 23rd May, 2008 passed by

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangola in Regular Civil

Suit No. 289 of 2001. The said Judgment and Decree was

challenged by the Appellant by fling Regular Civil Appeal No.

79 of 2008 and the said Appeal was also dismissed by the

learned First Appellate Court by Judgment and Decree dated

23rd February, 2015.

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

Appellant submitted that both the Courts have concurrently

held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that he has legal right to

sr.17.sa.843.15.doc

the Suit well and failed to prove obstruction at the hands of

the Defendant. By the concurrent fnding, the Suit as well as

the Appeal has been dismissed. He submitted that the

fndings recorded by the learned Courts are contrary to the

evidence on record and therefore, the following substantial

question of law is involved in this Second Appeal;

"Whether the fndings recorded by the learned

Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are

in accordance with the evidence on record?"

3. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Bhosale, learned counsel appearing

for the Respondents submitted that both the Courts after

considering the evidence on record have concurrently found

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.

4. The learned Trial Court dismissed the Suit fled by the

Respondents i.e. Plaintiffs which decree has been confrmed

by the learned First Appellate Court.

5. Perusal of both the Judgment shows that by

considering the evidence on record both the Courts have

sr.17.sa.843.15.doc

concurrently found that, the Plaintiff failed to prove

ownership of the Suit well as well as the obstruction at the

hands of the Defendant. Both the Courts have analysed the

evidence on record in detail and recorded the concurrent

fndings of fact.

6. Therefore, there is no substance in the substantial

question of law raised 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.)