JAGANNATH KASHINATH PATIL versus NARAYAN BALUGAIKAR

JAGANNATH KASHINATH PATIL versus NARAYAN BALUGAIKAR

The plaintiff/respondent, as successor to his maternal grandmother and being in possession delivered by the mortgagee, was entitled to title and retention of possession of the property. The trial court's grant of injunction and the High Court's restoration of that decree were correct in law.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Jagannath Kashinath Patil; Respondent: Narayan Balugaikar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 553 of 1971
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Property, Possessory Rights, Injunctions, Succession
Property Law Civil Procedure Title to Property Possessory Rights Injunctions Succession

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagannath Kashinath Patil

Appellant

Narayan Balugaikar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 553 of 1971

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to the property in dispute as successor of his maternal grandmother and whether possession delivered by the mortgagee confers valid title and possession
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court was correct in reversing the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff/respondent, as successor to his maternal grandmother and being in possession delivered by the mortgagee, was entitled to title and retention of possession of the property. The trial court's grant of injunction and the High Court's restoration of that decree were correct in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant directed to remove the offending structure from the said property within three months. On default, the respondent is at liberty to have it removed in execution and recover the costs incurred from the appellant.
  • No order as to costs.