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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 603

M.S.SONAK
Kusuma Manguesh Tirodkar – Appellant
Versus
Dilip Satardekar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
J.E. Coelho Pereira, Advocate, B. Fernandes, Advocate, Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate, A. Pereira, Advocate

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. B. Fernandes for the Appellants and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms. A. Pereira learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 31st March 2009 on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the Courts below fell in error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation and that Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies ?"

3. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.11/2006/D instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Vasco, seeking inter alia the reliefs of restoration of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction.

4. By the judgment and decree dated 25th September 2007, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Vasco, (Trial Court) partly decreed the suit. However, the relief of restoration of possession of the suit property by demolishing the construction put up by the Defendants therein was denied.

5. The Plaintiffs, appealed to the District Court (First Appellate Court), which has dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18th February 2008. Hence, the pres

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