CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR SAPKAL Vs. ANIL BALBHIM KHATAVKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

(2.) THE petitioners/defendants are challenging the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. The trial Court, by order, dated 6-6-2001, passed in R. C. Suit No. 10 of 2001, allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to restrain the petitioners from carrying out construction in the suit property. The appeal filed against the same being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2001 came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 25-9-2001. Hence the present revision application.

(3.) THE suit property comprises of a piece of land alleged to be a common passage and forming part of City Survey No. 196, situated in Village Medha, Taluka Jawali, District Satara. It is the case of the respondent that a plot of land admeasuring 47 sq. mtr. was purchased by him by a deed of sale dated 19-12-2000 from one Suresh Dharashivkar and alongwith the said plot he has also purchased the right for common passage through the plot situated on the east of the plot of land purchased by the petitioners. It is further the case of the respondent that the said plot was purchased by suresh Dharashivkar from the father of the petitioners, namely, Shankar by a sale deed dated 17-1-1950 and thereafter Suresh dharashivkar constructed a house in the year 1951. It is further the case of the respondent that he had been using the common passage himself and through his predecessors and there was no'obstruction for such use from whomsoever, including the petitioners. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that the suit property is the part and parcel of the property of the petitioners and the respondent has no right whatsoever therein. It is further the case of the petitioners that Shankar never sold any right to the suit property in fa-raisvour of Suresh Dharashivkar either under the sale deed dated 17-1-1950 nor otherwise and therefore Suresh Dharashivkar had no authority to convey any right in the suit property in favour of the respondent. It is their further case that the construction is being carried out after obtaining the necessary permission from the panchayat authority.