M.S.R.T.Corporation Nanded vs Ganeshsingh S.@Shantaramsingh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11109 Bom

                                       1                              18-SA-208-97.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         SECOND APPEAL NO.208 OF 1997

               M.S.R.T.CORPORATION NANDED
                           VERSUS
 GANESH SINGH SITARAMSINGH ALIAS SHANTARAM SINGH THAKUR
                              ...
           Advocate for Appellant : Smt. R. D. Reddy
                              ...
                                           CORAM :        S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                           DATE       : 30-10-2023
PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appeal has been admitted on 11.01.1999. However, no

substantial questions of law were formulated. Unless the

substantial question of law is formulated, the second appeal

cannot be proceeded with. After the admission, the notice was

also not issued to the respondent. A lawyer was appearing suo

motu for the respondent. He also stopped appearing on behalf of

the respondent.

3. Appeal was against the order in a suit for removal of

encroachment. The suit was based on title. The appellant is a

body corporate. The suit land was the part and parcel of the land

acquired for the purpose of Bus-stand. The suit of the plaintiff was

decreed. However, the learned Joint District Judge, Nanded

reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that

plaintiff/appellant did not prove that he is owner of the suit

property. There are two contra judgments on the same facts.

2 18-SA-208-97.odt

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

learned First Appellate Court misread the evidence and wrongly

recorded the findings that the appellant did not prove the title. The

document of title was proved before the learned trial Court, but it

was not correctly appreciated. Hence, whether the

appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, is a substantial

question of law.

5. The plaintiff had a case that he is occupying some portion of

the land as Yeramwar was the lessee of the appellant. Considering

the findings recorded by two different courts as regards the title of

the appellant, the Court is satisfied that there are arguable points

and substantial questions of law have been involved in this case.

Hence, the following substantial questions of law have been

formulated :-

i) Whether the appellant is the owner of the suit land ?

ii) Whether the possession of the respondent/defendant is authorized ?

iii) Whether the first Appellate Court misread the document ?

6. Appeal is already admitted. Hence, there is no fresh orders

on admission.

7. Issue notice to the respondent for final hearing, returnable

on 04.01.2024.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE rrd