Bombay High Court
Kaushalyabai Bhagwanrao Ghatge vs Sulochana Bharatrao Yadav And Others on 1 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:16854
(1) 904sa699.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 SECOND APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2018
KAUSHALYABAI BHAGWANRAO GHATGE
....Appellant
VERSUS
SULOCHANA BHARATRAO YADAV AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Mr. M. V. Ghatge, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for the respondent No.1
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 01st AUGUST, 2024
P. C.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is against a decree passed by the learned
trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court.
3. The present appellant is original defendant No.1.
Plaintiff Sulochana and Vrindavani had filed suit for recovery of
possession, declaration, mesne profit and perpetual injunction.
Both the plaintiffs are sisters of both the defendants. Their
1 of 4
(2) 904sa699.18
parents died leaving behind the ancestral property. However,
possession was with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was defense of
the defendants that the property is received by them by way of
Sridhan and thus they have become exclusive owner of the
property. Second defense was that there was oral partition and
the property is received by them in oral partition. Third defense
was that plaintiffs have executed consent deed relinquishing the
right in the property. Learned trial court held that defendants
failed to prove that the property was received as Sridhan. It is
further held that even oral partition is not proved by the
defendants and so far as defense of consent deed is concerned,
there is no documents produced on record. Thus, the learned
trial court specifically recorded findings that properties are
ancestral properties and since the defendants have failed to
prove their defense and passed a decree.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
17-10-2013 passed by the learned CJJD, Parbhani in RCS
No.275/2012 both the defendants approached the learned
2 of 4
(3) 904sa699.18
District Judge by filing RCA No.146/2013. Said appeal also
came to be dismissed by learned Ad-hoc. District Judge,
Parbhani by judgment and order dated 11-04-2018 confirming
the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.
Against the said judgment and decree only defendant No.1 has
now come before this court.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Ghatge vehemently argued
that both the courts have failed in appreciating the evidence on
record. Defendants had laid the oral evidence to show that the
property was received as a Sridhan and by way of partition. In
support of third defense of consent deed though no document
was produced. However, evidence of defendants ought to have
been accepted.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent supports the
judgment stating that both the courts have recorded categorical
findings on all the issues. He further submits that no
interference is permissible while exercising jurisdiction under
3 of 4
(4) 904sa699.18
Section 100 of the CPC.
7. This court has gone through the judgment of the
learned trial court as well as appellate court. This court does not
find any perversity in recording of findings and coming to the
conclusion. All the issues are held against the present appellant.
There is one more factor which weighs in mind is that defendant
No.2 has not challenged the judgment and decree of the
appellate court. Since there is no perversity pointed out in
appreciating the evidence, this court holds that no substantial
question of law is made out to entertain the appeal.
8. In view of this, this court finds that no ground is
made out to entertain the appeal and therefore, appeal deserves
to be dismissed same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil
applications if any, does not survive and stand disposed off.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
VishalK/904sa699.18
4 of 4
