(1) 12 wp 7049-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7049 OF 2026 Kailash S/o Nandlal Chadhar VERSUS Neeta W/o Nikesh Gupta And Others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.D. Hajare, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 22.09.2026 Heard. 2. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed below Exhibit 5 on 13.02.2026 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 199/2024. The said appeal was filed by the present petitioner, who happens to be the defendant No. 4 in the Trial Court, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No. 338/2014. By way of said decree the defendants were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property within three months from the date of that order. 3. I have gone through the impugned order. In the said order in paragraph Nos. 10, 11, and 12 it reads thus : “10] Upon going through the impugned Judgment and decree, it can be gathered that the trial Court has very minutely considered each and every aspect (2) 12 wp 7049-2026 of the dispute. The material aspect is the ownership of the suit property and while deciding the same, trial Court has very specifically observed that the plaintiff has produced on record sale-deed dated 12.4.2013 below Exh.106 executed by Kasturibai in favour of plaintiff. So also, there is property card of the suit property below Exh.34 which shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Trial Court has also observed that the sale-deed Exh.106 is not put to contest by defendants nor there is any rebuttal evidence on this aspect and therefore, there is positive evidence of plaintiff that on the basis of sale-deed vide Exh. 106, she became owner of the suit property. 11] As far as defence of defendant No.4 i.e. the present appellant that the suit property was bequeathed by his maternal aunt namely Saguniyabai in favour of Narayandas and deceased Nandulal, this contention is not supported by any documentary evidence on record. Trial court observed that there is no Will or documentary proof to show that Saguniyabai during her life time has bequeathed the suit property and therefore, in absence of any such documentary evidence, it cannot be said that Saguniyabai had bequeathed the suit property to Naryandas and Nandulal and therefore, trial Court did not accept version of defendant No.4 in this regard. 12] Trial court has also observed that after demise of Saguniyabai, her daughter Kasturibai had executed sale-deed of the suit property in favour of plaintiff and on the basis of said sale-deed dated 12.4.2013, the plaintiff became owner of suit property and her name was mutated in the record of rights of the suit property. It is also observed by trial Court that defendant No.4 had admitted in his cross-examination that Mukesh, Kailash, Narayandas and Ravi i.e. defendants have no adoption deed, if for the sake of argument, they were related to the Saguniyabai and as such, the (3) 12 wp 7049-2026 plaintiff has proved by leading cogent evidence that she is owner of the suit property on the basis of sale- deed Exh.106. Trial Court has also observed that on the other hand, there is no documentary evidence brought by defendant No.4 to show that Saguniyabai had bequeathed the suit property in her life time to Narayandas and Nandulal. Trial court also observed that defendant No.1 and 2 never entered in to witness box to deny ownership of plaintiff over the suit property or that, she is not landlord of the suit property. Trial Court also observed that defendant No.1 Mukesh in his statement before police and in FIR Exh.35, has admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiff and thus, defendant No.1 and 2 have admitted that they were tenants of the plaintiff and there exist landlord and tenant relationship between them.” 4. The Appellate Court has considered the entire facts on the record and, more particularly, absence of any material of the present petitioner to show his possession. The order impugned does not show any jurisdictional error or perversity. The petition being meritless, liable to be rejected, and is rejected accordingly. 5. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per the Rules. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 19:11:35