SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 379

S.B.DESHMUKH
Arun Ashruba Mhaske – Appellant
Versus
Atmaram Dattu Mhaske – Respondent


ORAL ORDER :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Resume of the relevant facts, may be summarised as follows :-

(A). Present respondents 1 to 6 were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.208 of 1976 ("RCS") filed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. Present respondents 7 and 8 are original defendants 1 and 2 and, present petitioner is the original defendant No.6, present respondent No.9 is the original defendant No.3, present respondent 10 is the original defendant No.4 and present respondent No.1 is the original defendant No.5. Parties hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, are being referred to their status in the RCS.

(B). Learned Civil Judge J.D. Beed ("trial Court") after recording evidence decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 10.8.1983. Subject matter of the suit is undisputedly agricultural lands. This judgment and decree was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No.293 of 1983 ("RCA") in the court of learned District Judge, Beed ("first appellate Court"). Said RCA, after hearing the parties, was allowed on 5.9.1992 a


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top