WASUDEO BUDHARAM BARAPATRE Vs. NATHU DEOBA DHANDOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is admitted on 29.08.1991 on question of law as to . .Whether the plaintiff had a right of egress and ingress through the southern door of their house for annual repairs and for fetching water and other purposes . Both the Counsel here states that reference to door as to Southern Door is incorrect and it should be to Northern Door.

(2.) I have heard Shri Y.R. Sonkusare, Advocate for Appellants / original Plaintiffs and Shri R.S. Charpe, Advocate for respondents through Legal heirs.

(3.) Advocate Shri Sonkusare, has contended that the trial court has rightly appreciated the controversy and recorded a finding of continuous user and the same has been set aside by the Appellate Court on irrelevant grounds. He argues that ownership of appellants/plaintiffs was not in dispute, their user or occupation of suit house was also not in dispute, the necessity to repair northern wall from outside was also not in dispute, and in such circumstances, the Court below could not have dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. He invites attention to the observations in paragraph nos. 5,6 and 7 of the Appellate Court and states that non filing of sale deed could not have been treated as fatal by the Appellate Court. He further states that use of Exh.18 by the trial Court could not have been objected to by the Appellate Court, because it was only a inspection note prepared by the Presiding Officer.