Dnyanoba Mahadev Kamble vs Kumar Rajaram Vede And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11105 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:23556

                                                       1                                29-SA-37-21.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                        SECOND APPEAL NO.37 OF 2021
                                       WITH CA/1053/2021 IN SA/37/2021

                Dnyanoba s/o. Mahadev Kamble,
                Age 59 years, Occu. Labour,
                R/o. Parlives, Ambajogai,
                District Beed                                              ..       Appellant
                                                                                (Original Plaintiff)
                                 Versus

                1.      Kumar s/o. Rajaram Vede,
                        Age 52 years, Occu. Business-Vitbhatti,
                        Parlives, Bhimnagar, Ambajogai,
                        District Beed

                2.      The Chief Officer,
                        Municipal Council, Ambajogai,
                        Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed                    ..       Respondents
                                                                                (Original Defendants)

                Mr. Angad L. Kanade, Advocate for Appellant

                                                            CORAM :        S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                                            DATE       : 30-10-2023

                PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He has filed suit for

perpetual injunction against the respondents/original defendants.

3. The plaintiff has a case that suit plot is his ancestral

property. However, the respondents were disturbing his

possession. Hence, perpetual injunction restraining the

respondents from disturbing his possession may be issued.

2 29-SA-37-21.odt

4. The learned trial Court framed the relevant issues and held

that the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the suit property and

there was no obstruction to his possession caused by the

respondents. The learned trial Court appreciated the documents,

i.e. the tax receipts and tax assessment forms. Appreciating the

oral and the documentary evidence, both Courts held that the

appellant/plaintiff did not prove his title and there was no

obstruction.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned first Appellate Court considered the document of tax

receipt and assessment list and held one another person was also

the owner of the suit property. He would also submit that in the

earlier suit against respondent No.1, an injunction was issued. He

has vehemently argued that the suit property is in his possession

since long. He would submit that the issue of lawful possession of

the appellant over the suit land is the substantial question of law

involved in the appeal.

6. Perused the impugned judgments and orders.

7. Considering the case of the appellant, issue as regards the

lawful possession and title over the suit property were considered

by both Courts. The findings of both Courts that the extract of tax

receipt and assessment list is not the proof of title. Both Courts

have correctly appreciated the evidence and passed impugned

3 29-SA-37-21.odt

judgments and decrees.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

findings recorded by both Courts, this Court is of the view that no

substantial question of law has been involved in the appeal.

9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.

10. Pending civil application also stands disposed of.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

rrd