Sitabai Baburao Jadhav And Ors. vs Tulshiram Yeshwant Jadhav And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6594 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sitabai Baburao Jadhav And Ors. vs Tulshiram Yeshwant Jadhav And Ors. on 8 October, 2025

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

   2025:BHC-AS:43446

                                                                                                         6_SA279_15.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                     SECOND APPEAL NO.279 OF 2015

                               Sitabai Baburao Jadhav and others                           ...        Appellants
                               Vs.
                               Tulshiram Yeshwant Jadhav and others                        ...        Respondents
                                                                 WITH
                                                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2015
                                                                   IN
                                                     SECOND APPEAL NO.279 OF 2015
                                                                   ---
                               Mr. Abhijeet Khade i/b. Mr. S. P. Dighe for Appellants.

                                                                   CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2025

P.C. :

. Heard Mr. Khade, learned counsel for the appellants. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been pending in this Court from the year 2015 i.e. for a period of more than 10 years. The record shows that till date, the appeal could not be taken up for considering as to whether a substantial question of law at all arises for this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It appears that at some point in time, only notice was issued in this appeal due to which the respondents were served and an advocate filed Vakalatnama for some of the respondents.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellants in detail on the question as to whether a substantial question of law at all arises in this appeal.

MINAL    Digitally signed by

SANDIP
PARAB
         MINAL SANDIP
         PARAB
         Date: 2025.10.09
         10:20:50 +0530

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court

6_SA279_15.doc

finds that the appellants i.e. the original plaintiffs had filed suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, concerning the suit property on the ground that the respondents (defendants) had interfered with their enjoyment of part of the property. It was alleged that the respondents illegally demolished a cattle shed, which led to triggering cause of action for filing of the suit. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sinnar, District - Nashik (trial Court) as the original Court and the judgement and order passed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court, Nashik in the first appeal shows that both the Courts have considered the material, pleadings and evidence on record to return concurrent findings against the appellants. The trial Court framed issues and gave findings in the negative against the appellants on various aspects including issue as to whether the appellants as the plaintiffs had proved their ownership and possession over the suit property.

5. When the first appeal was considered by the District Court, the appellants moved an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, seeking permission to rely upon certain documents. The said application was taken up, as per settled law, by the District Court for consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The District Court found that the documents sought to be brought on record at the appellate stage on behalf of the appellants were not relevant for deciding the appeal on merits. Specific findings have been rendered in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2015 of the District Court. The reasons recorded in the said paragraph are found to be cogent and logical in order to decline the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for bringing on record documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC.

6. The District Court considered the findings rendered by the trial Court after appreciating the entire material on record and found that such

6_SA279_15.doc

findings of the trial Court did not deserve the interference.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court tried to rely upon the report of the Court Commissioner, which according to him, had been wrongly ignored by both the Courts below. A perusal of the impugned judgement and order of the District Court shows that the said aspect has been considered in paragraph 17 of the judgement. It is correctly found that even if the report of the Court Commissioner is to be taken into consideration, it would not, in any manner, assist the appellants in proving their title to the suit property.

8. As regards the findings regarding ownership and title in the suit property, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have referred to, in detail, the entries in the Grampanchayat records as well as the city survey record. Findings of fact have been rendered concurrently by the two Courts below, which do not deserve any interference.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds that the instant appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab