All Second Appeal

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 6/10/2018 Advocate for Appellant present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.16 16:58:33 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 29/10/2018 None present Three weeks time excluding Diwali Vacation is granted as last chance to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 04/12/2018 None present Four weeks time excluding Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A. St. shall stand refused for registration along with all the C.A. St.s filed in this S.A. St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....Appellant V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....Respondent Adv.Deepa Punde i/by Sachin Suryakant Punde For Appellant Adv.Vaishali Penkar i/by Bhushan Walimbe for Respondnet No. 1, 2 & 6 CORAM : AMIT BHALCHANDRA BORKAR, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Appellant No. , Stand over to 31/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPELLANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1647 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPLICANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 19th June, 2024 P.C. : Listed for assigning date. Stand over to 16/08/2024 If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPELLANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1647 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPLICANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT Mr. Suraj Jadhav h/f Mr. Sachin Punde for Appellant. Mr. Mayank Tripathi i/b Mr. Bhushan Walimbefor Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 16th August, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 30/08/2024 as a Last Chance. Under the caption for Urgent Admission. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1647 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 IRESH MASHAL Kamlu Rama Gaikwad .....Appellants (Decd. Thr. LRs) Vs. Sukir Hasha Tambade .....Respondent Mr. Sachin Punde a/w Mr. Suraj Jadhav for the appellants Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Mayank Tripathi for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 30 th AUGUST 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of the second appeal. Closed for orders. [GAURI GODSE, J.] Iresh Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2024.09.02 11:31:25 +0530

Order - Status 19: 903-sa-818-2019-ca-1647-2019.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1647 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad(Decd. Thr. Lrs) … Appellants/Applicants vs. Sukir Hasha Tambade … Respondent Mr. Sachin Punde a/w. Suraj Jadhav for Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w. Mr. Mayank Tripathi for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. RESERVED ON : 30 th AUGUST 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 25 th OCTOBER 2024 ORDER: VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2024.10.25 20:27:19 +0530 This appeal is preferred by heirs and legal representatives of original defendant no.1 to challenge concurrent judgments and decrees declaring that defendants nos. 1 and 2 have unauthorizedly made encroachment on the suit road as shown in the map at Exhibit-131. The impugned decree further grants a declaration that the plaintiffs and all villagers have legal right to use the suit road. The impugned decree further directs defendants nos. 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorised construction from the suit road and restrains them from raising any construction on the suit road or obstructing plaintiffs and all the villagers from using the suit road. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the two maps produced on record at Exhibit-138 and 137 are contrary to each other. Hence, based on the said maps, the decree could not have been passed, holding that the suit road is a public road. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that only based on the map at Exhibit-137, it could not be accepted that the suit road is a public road, as contended by the plaintiffs. He submits that the suit road is an open land therefore, in the absence of the owner of the land made a party to the suit, the suit was not maintainable. He thus submits that if the suit road is not a public road, the suit filed in a representative capacity would not be maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants would require consideration by this court as the same involves substantial questions of law on whether, by relying upon a map, the suit road could have been declared as a public road for granting declaration and injunction in a representative capacity. He submits that the ground of maintainability of the suit also raises substantial question of law. I have perused the impugned judgments. The defendants never challenged the order permitting the plaintiff to file a suit in a representative capacity. In view of the order permitting the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to file a suit in a representative capacity as contemplated under Rule 8(1) of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, public notice was issued, and plaintiff nos. 3 to 7 were impleaded as co-plaintiffs, and defendant nos. 3 to 7 were impleaded as additional defendants. The suit describes the suit road by referring to the description of the adjoining properties belonging to the plaintiffs as well as defendant no.1. The plaintiffs contended that the north-south road, i.e. suit road, is situated on the west side of defendant no.1's property which is the only public road available for plaintiffs and all other villagers. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no.1 carried out constructions on the suit road and obstructed the plaintiff and other villagers from using the suit road hence, the suit was filed in a representative capacity. Defendant no.1 admitted the description of the properties however, they contended that in view of partition, the area of the constructions carried out by him was given to defendant no.2, i.e defendant no.1's son. Thus, defendant no.1 contended that the alleged encroachment was in use of defendant no.1 for the last seven years and that for last 25 to 35 years, the villagers were not using the suit road, and it was being used as an open land by the villagers. Thus, defendant no.1, contended that there were no unauthorised constructions carried out on the suit road, and the constructions carried out by him were in the property bearing CTS No. 23/262, belonging to defendant no.1. From the reasons recorded by both the courts, it is seen that the existence of the suit road is not disputed by defendant no.1. However, he has contended that the area of the suit road was used as open land by the villagers. Thus, from defendant no.1's pleading, it is clear that the dispute raised on behalf of defendant no.1 is not based on any independent right on the suit road, but defendant no.1 contended that it was not being used as a suit road. Pertinently, defendant no.1 contended that the area described as a suit road by plaintiffs was used as open land by the villagers. Based on the evidence produced on record, both the courts accepted the plaintiffs' case that the suit road described in the plaint was a public road, and the land is situated towards the western side of CTS No. 262 as a Gaothan land. In the surveyor's report produced at Exhibit-128, the land was shown as open land; however, the demarcation indicates that when the City Survey was first effected in the year 1964, there was a public road as described by the plaintiffs. The map produced at Exhibit-131 issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer also reflected the public road. Thus, by relying upon the said maps, both the courts recorded finding of facts that there was a public road in existence as contended by the plaintiffs. A perusal of the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court indicates that after examining the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court's findings are confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The reasons recorded by both the courts interpreting map at Exhibits 121, 128, 131 and 137 show that the description of the suit road as pleaded by the plaintiffs is accepted as correct. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants by referring to maps at Exhibits 137 and 128 would amount to re-appreciating the evidence on record. Both the courts have examined the map at Exhibit 128 in detail, along with the map at Exhibits 126 and 131. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded by both the courts by referring to the maps on record. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants that the maps at Exhibits 128 and 137 were contrary to each other. It is not the defendant no.1's case that he had any independent right on the area described as a public road. The defendant no.1 has not disputed that he has carried out constructions on the area described by the plaintiffs as a suit road. However, defendant no.1, claims that the area described as a suit road was not a road and was used as an open land by all the villagers. Thus, once defendant no.1 accepts that it is an open land used by the villagers and defendant no.1, does not have any independent right in respect of the said area, he cannot retain his unauthorised constructions on the area admittedly used by the villagers. In view of defendant no.1's admission that the area described as a suit road is used by the villagers as an open land, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in the second appeal that the owner of the open land was a necessary party, is not required to be examined for the first time in the second appeal. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, both courts also dealt with the issue regarding the non-joinder of Gram Panchayat as a necessary party. It is concurrently held that Gram Panchayat would not be a necessary party in the suit filed in the representative capacity, as the issue involved in the suit filed in the representative capacity was on the villager's right to use the suit road. No relief was claimed against the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the reasons recorded by both the courts for holding that the Gram Panchayat was not the necessary party cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, the appellant has admitted that the area described as the suit road is used by the villagers as an open land. Considering the pleadings of defendant no.1, it is clear that the area described as a suit road was admittedly used by the villagers. Thus, in any event, defendant no.1, is not entitled to claim any independent right by carrying out construction on the area used by the villagers as a public road. Thus, the ground raised on non-joinder of the necessary parties would not require any consideration by this court as the same does not raise any substantial question of law. Thus, both the courts have rightly decreed the suit granting a declaration of the existence of the suit road and directing the appellant to remove unauthorised construction and restrained defendant nos. 1 and 2 from raising any unauthorised construction on the suit road. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments. In view of concurrent findings of facts recorded on the existence of the public road, the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant would not require any consideration by this court. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, pending application is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second appeal No. 1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Shri P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Shri Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 18th July, 2007 P.C. At the request of Shri Arjunwadkar and with a view to find out the extent of encroachment on the property which can be removed and some workable arrangement can be made at site, stand over for one week. No further adjournment will be granted. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE Second Appeal No.1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No.1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th August, 2007 P.C. Heard Mr.Arjunwadkar appearing for the appellant and Mr.Borkar appearing for the respondents. The respondent/original plaintiff filed Reg.Civil Suit No.273 of 1994 which has been decreed by the Trial Court on 17th July, 1999. The decree is of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant/original defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession in respect of the suit property and to remove the construction described in para 2 of the plaint. That decree has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court on 11th April, 2005 in Reg.Civil Appeal no.370 of 1999. The appellant/Original Defendant has preferred the present second appeal. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the plea that the substantial question of law which arises is that the respondent/original plaintiff was aware of the construction. Once the plaintiff was so aware then she could not have filed the suit after considerable lapse of time. The principle of acquiescence would come into play and, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction should not have been decreed. The Courts below erred in decreeing the same and that is how this Court should entertain the second appeal. The Courts below have relied upon the deposition of the son of the respondent. He has specifically deposed that the city survey no.4 which is the suit property is the house surrounded by open space. C.S.No.3 is open space. Both the properties are situated within the limits of Municipal Council. After tracing the title of the respondents through the Gift Deed and sale deed, it is pointed out that these properties are entered in the name of the respondent/original plaintiff and she is paying the municipal taxes. Thus, the ownership and possession was proved. The Courts below also have relied upon Exh.81 which is a map. The map has been relied upon in addition to the oral deposition of the plaintiff's son and one witness Babu Ramu Mane. This is clear case where encroachment was made by the appellant on certain portion of the respondent's property thereby causing obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent/original plaintiff. The Courts below have concluded that the encroachment committed is a very recent one. In such circumstances and when the plea of adverse possession raised on behalf of the appellant/original defendant has been rejected through out, in my view, entertaining the present second appeal would mean reappreciating and reappraising the material on record which is impermissible in law. This is not a case where the plaintiff could be said to have acquiesced in the construction or acts of the respondent/tenant/original defendant. The construction has found to be recent one. It is not a case which is covered by the decision relied upon i.e. A.I.R.1981 Madras 220 (R.S.Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A.Annamalai and others). The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. There is no merit in the second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the second appeal the civil application no.1680 of 2005 does not survive and is -3- disposed of accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2010 Smt.Sunanda Vijay Vartha & ors. ... Appellants v/s Shri Ganesh Purshottam Bhatta & ors. ... Respondents Ms.Kalpana K. Shah for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Jr.Divn., Dahanu in R.C. Suit No. 24 of 2004 which has been confirmed by the District Judge at Palghar in Civil Appeal No.33 of 2006. Admittedly, the appellants were the tenants of the respondents in respect of a hut. A suit was filed by the landlord – the respondents herein, for evicting the tenants on Bsb the ground of illegal additions and alterations to the suit premises. The present suit was filed with respect to encroachment on the open place surrounding the hut. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants have encroached on the open space surrounding the premises occupied by them, and that, the encroachment would have to be removed. As regards the occupation or the tenancy in respect of the hut admeasuring 30 ft. x 12 ½ ft., both the Courts below have not passed any orders adverse to the appellants' interest. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the question of jurisdiction. She submits that since the appellants were the tenants of the respondents, the suit ought not to have been tried before the Civil Court but before the appropriate forum i.e. the Small Causes Court. On consideration of the impugned judgment, in my view, no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The question of jurisdiction would have arisen had the Civil Court decided the question whether the appellants were to be evicted from the hut. The suit and the relief granted by the Trial Court is restricted to the area outside the hut and, therefore, in my view, the question of jurisdiction does not arise. Second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application. .....

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant. Mr. Sukumar Ghanavat for Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 18th January, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 15/02/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 26/04/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr.Sukumar Ghanavat for Applicant in I.A.No.19901/2022. Ms.Divya Pawar for Appellant in S.A.No.517/2022 and Applicant in I.A.No.10504/2022 in S.A.No.517/2022. Mr.Nagesh Y. Chavanf or Appellant in S.A.No.962/2022. S.A.No.874/2022 and Applicant in I.A.No.428/2023 in S.A.No.962/2022. for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 8th March, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 15/03/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: 9-ia-10504-2022 in sa-517-2022.doc Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10504 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ...Applicant Versus Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. ...Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode … Appellant Versus Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. … Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2023 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents 1/2 Pallavi WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19901 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri Vinayak Tukaram Chavan …Applicant In the matter between Shri Dadaso Hariba Rode …Appellant Versus Shri Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. Respondents Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/b. Ms. Divya A. Pawar, for the Applicant in SA/517/2022 and for Applicant in IA/10504/2022. Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for the Appellant in SA/962/2022, SA/874/2022 & Applicant in IA/428/2023 and for Respondent in SA/517/2022. Mr. Sukumar Ghanavat for the Applicant in IA/19901/2022 in SA/517/2022. CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 29th MARCH 2023 P.C. : Stand over to 12th April 2023 at 2.30 pm. Ad-interim relief to continue till then. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Order - Status 16: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : $6/09/2018$ None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objection. $sd/-$ REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Karnik SumitDigitally signed bySumit Ramesh KarnikRameshDate: 2018.09.12Karnik15:21:58 +0530

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 28/09/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance is granted to remove office objection. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.03 15:10:54 +0530

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 22/10/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance excluding Diwali Vacation is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.25 17:07:48 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 7/12/2018 None present 4 weeks time excl. Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A.St. shall stand refused for registration, alongwith all the C.A.Sts. filed in this S.A.St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2004 Shri Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through legal heirs) Ankush Ramchandra Shelke 7 ors. ... Appellants V/s Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sachin Chavan holding for Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the appellants. None for the respondents. ALONGWITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2005 Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Appellants V/s Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through his L.Rs.) 1(a) Sonabai Ramchandra Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.A. Udgikar for the appellants. None for the respondents. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C.: Both appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of common judgment passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No.18 of 1989 and was disposed of by the appellate Court by order dated 5.4.2004 with certain modifications in the lower Court's order. The plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 had referred R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 and R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 against the judgment passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for the partition of the lower appellate Court and disposed of both appeals by common judgment, whereas Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1993 by original defendant No.1 claiming for certain properties in the suit for self-acquired property was dismissed. Whereas, plaintiff's Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993 was partly allowed with modification with regard to the quantum of share of the respective parties. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals. Perused the record. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/3 share from the suit properties bearing Gat Nos. 77, 435, 1450, 236/1 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund on the ground 2 that those were ancestral properties and he had 1/3 share therein. Defendants contested the suit inter-alia submitting that part of the suit properties was their self-acquired property. It was also contended that there was previous partition in the year 1964 with regard to certain properties involved in the suit and, therefore, their properties cannot be the subject matter to the partition as prayed for and sought dismissal of the suit. The learned Trial Judge adjudicated the dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties Gat No.77, 435, 1450 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune and hence he also held that defendants 1 and 6 are also entitled for their 1/3 share from the suit properties and decreed the suit. The appeal was carried to the District Court at Baramati. The learned Addil. District Judge, after hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 was liable to be dismissed as he did not prove part of the suit properties as he did not prove that part of the suit 3 property was self-acquired property and modified the decree in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the extent that instead of 1/3 share, it was held that party had 1/5 share therein and disposed of the appeal. Hence the present appeal. At the outset, it may be noted that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 submitted that he was serving Post & Telegraph Department and had purchased suit property Gat No.77, 435 and 1450 for his own income for consideration of his being Karta and, therefore, those properties were self-acquired properties. However, both the Courts below have found absolutely no evidence in support of this contention raised on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1 and his plea to that extent was dismissed. On the other hand, the plaintiff came with the case that defendant had relinquished his share in the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff would get 1/3 share in the suit properties. However, the lower appellate Court found that there is absolutely no evidence of relinquishment of his suit properties to 4 defendant No.7 and, as such, the plea of the plaintiff that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties was rejected and it was held that parties have 1/5 share in the suit property and, and as such the decree was modified and appeal was allowed. In view of this factual matrix, there is absolutely no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in both appeals as they are based on factual aspects of the evidence and, as such, I hold that both appeals are devoid of any merits and hence both appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1607 of 2004 in Second Appeal No. 1153 of 2004 also stands dismissed with no order as to costs. .....

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2005 Vilas... Bhimrao Dhotre. Appellant. Versus. State... of Maharashtra & ors. Respondent. Shri D.J.Deshmukh for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant/original Plaintiff. Admittedly the Appellant was allowed to use the property in question for a limited period of 11 months. The said period has expired long back. The property of which the Appellant was put in possession under the agreement belongs to the Government and the Government has power to resume the land. Both the Courts below have held that the Appellant has no right to continue in possession after a period of 11 months. No substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge.

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: Pallavi MAHENDRA Digitally signed by PALLAVI WARGAONKAR Date: 2022.12.15 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.828 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.743 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwan and Ors. … Appellants Versus Zinat Ismail Bagwan … Respondent WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.349 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.747 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan and Ors. … Appellants Versus Zinat Ismail Bagwan … Respondent Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i/b. Kishor Patil for the Appellants/Applicant in both matters. Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar for the Respondent in both matters. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 14th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C.: At the joint request, stand over to 11th January 2023. Ad-interim relief granted by order dated 30th April 2019 to continue till next date. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 743 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 11th January, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 28/02/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 743 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 28th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/06/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 743 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 21st June, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 18/07/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 743 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. APPLICANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 11th November, 2024 P.C. : Listed for assigning date.Stand Over to 24/03/2025 If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2019 Vahid Babalal Bagwan And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 743 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 828 OF 2022 Vahid Babalal Bagwanand Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Zinat Ismail Bagwan ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 24th March, 2025 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand Over to 18/08/2025. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )