D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA
Sau Rajani – Appellant
Versus
Sau Smita – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.
2. By a judgment dated 11 December 2019, a Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, held in the course of deciding a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081["CPC"] that the suit instituted by the appellant is barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 19762["the Act"].The High Court reversed concurrent findings of the trial court in the suit and of the first appellate court.
3. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to the plaint in the suit - Regular Civil Suit No 775 of 1993-instituted by the appellant before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati. The appellant has pleaded that the second respondent (Amravati Housing and Area Development Board) allotted Block No 4/6 situated on the first floor at Tope Nagar, Amravati to her on 16 July 1986. The appellant claims to be in possession of the residential tenement. The first respondent is stated to be in occupation of a ground floor tenement in the same building bearing Block No 4/2. According to the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.