Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ashish S/O Subhashchandra Paliwal vs Vitthal S/O Ramaji Pathode And Another on 30 March, 2022

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                                                                931-SA62.22.odt
                                                           1/2



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                            SECOND APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2022
                               Ashish Subhashchandra Paliwal
                                             -Vs.-
                             Vitthal Ramaji Pathode and another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                   Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, counsel for the appellant.




                                                CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 30.03.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Issue notice on the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether in view of recitals mentioned sale deed dated 28/04/1980 (Exhibit-42) executed in favour of defendant No.1 and sale deed dated 27/04/2012 (Exhibit-31) executed in favour of plaintiff, the defendants have other rights and claim over the disputed lane except right of way i.e. ingress and egress?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is Servient heritage and owner, whereas defendants are dominant heritage/owners as far as disputed lane is concerned according to section 4 of the Easement Act?
(3) Whether the learned subordinate appellate court misconstrued and misread the sale KHUNTE 931-SA62.22.odt 2/2 deed dated 28/04/1980 (Exhibit-42) executed in favour of defendant No.1 and sale deed dated 27/04/2012 (Exhibit-31) executed in favour of plaintiff?

3. The notice shall be returnable in four weeks.

CIVIL APPLN (S) NO. 223 OF 2022 This is an application seeking interim relief. This Court has already framed substantial questions of law while issuing notice. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that even during the pendency of the suit, before the Trial Court, there was an order of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant and there was interim arrangement even during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court.

2. In view of above, issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

3. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'.

JUDGE Signed By:GHANSHYAM S KHUNTE Signing Date:01.04.2022 12:29 KHUNTE