DULICHAND S/O GANUJI GAJBHIYE Vs. SHANKARLAL S/O RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-148
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on March 21,2018

Dulichand S/O Ganuji Gajbhiye Appellant
VERSUS
Shankarlal S/O Radhakishan Agrawal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MANISH PITALE,J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant against the respondent, seeking an order to restrain the respondent from disturbing peaceful possession of the appellant in the suit property being Gat No. 175 in T.S.No.18 situated in tehsil Amgaon, district Bhandara. The appellant further sought a mandatory injunction commanding the respondent to demolish boundary walls and tin shed already constructed on the aforesaid suit property.
(2.) The appellant claimed to be the owner of the said suit property and further that he was in possession thereof at the time of filing of the suit. It was claimed that on 09.11.1985, when the appellant came to Amgaon, he noticed that the respondent and his associates had started construction on the boundary wall of the said suit property and that the appellant was constrained to lodge a police complaint regarding the same. As the police failed to take any action in the matter, the appellant filed the aforesaid suit. The respondent filed his written statement in the said suit and denied that the appellant was owner and in possession of the suit property. It was claimed that the appellant had filed an earlier suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 1982, against the respondent and one Savitridevi in respect of Gat No. 172, which was pending wherein the appellant had claimed that there was encroachment by the defendants and that now the present suit had been filed to unnecessarily harass the respondent.
(3.) To support his claim, the appellant relied upon copies of revenue records at Exhs. 49 to 51, a map at Exh.52 and an order at Exh.53, whereby the suit property was converted to non-agricultural use. In the oral evidence, the appellant claimed that suit property was ancestral property and that it had come to him on the basis of a partition. The respondent in the oral evidence claimed that he had made the construction on Gat No. 172-B and not on Gat No. 175 and that , therefore, there was no substance in the grievance made by the appellant in the aforesaid suit. There were sale deeds at Exhs. 60,61 and 62 on record pertaining to various portions of the land wherein the suit property, as claimed by the appellant, was located.;


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