SMT. KAMALABAI SADASHIV TIRODKAR AND OTHERS Vs. VASANTI DEELIP SALGAONKARAN AND OTHERS
LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-227
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on April 19,2018

Smt. Kamalabai Sadashiv Tirodkar And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Vasanti Deelip Salgaonkaran And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.V.BHADANG,J. - (1.) On 11/9/2003 this Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the basic premise adopted by the Appellate Court that depsite destruction of the alleged tenanted premises, the tenancy therein continuous/survives, is legal in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Vannattan Kandy Ibrarji v. Kunhabdull Hajee reported in (2001) 2 SCC 564 ? (b) Whether, the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that in view of Order 41, Rule 22 (1), the Appellant as a Respondent before the Lower Appellate Court cannot be permitted to challenge the findings of the Trial Court to the effect that Smt. Prema A. Naik was a tenant in the absence of a cross objection? (c) Whether the purported Agreement (Exhibit 114) alleged to have been written by the father of the plaintiff was no legal evidence in the eyes of law, in as much as the same was proved by the respondents in terms of sections 67 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the Appellants had denied that the hand writing in the said agreement, was of the father of the plaintiff, more particularly, when the said document was at all signed by anybody. (d) Whether in view of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 4 C.P.C the claim of tenancy of the respondents being vague the same ought to have been rejected by the lower court?
(2.) During the course of hearing the following additional substantial questions of law came to be framed on 14/2/2018 : (e) Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate Court and particularly as to the appreciation and construction placed on Exhibits 113, 113A, 114 and 140 are perverse, being against the weight of the evidence on record and based on conjectures and surmises? (f) Whether the first appellate court while deciding the appeal exceeded its jurisdiction as circumcised by Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C.? (g) Whether the defendant no.3 is a necessary party to the suit, in the absence of whom, the suit could have been decreed ?.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on all the substantial questions of law as framed and the appeal is being disposed of finally.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.