SUBHASH VISHWANATH KAWADE AND ANOTHER v. PRABHAKAR VITTHAL KAWADE AND ANOTHER
CAS/1246/2026 · 2026-09-21
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9596 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9596 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 / 2 2-cas 1246-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 1246 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 16610 OF 2026 Subhash Vishwanath Kawade and anr. Vs. Prabhakar Vitthal Kawade and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.N.Patre, counsel for the applicants/appellants.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 21/09/2026
1. Heard.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of 35 days’ delay in filing the Second Appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 35 days in filing the Second Appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Registry is directed to register the appeal.
4. Civil application stands disposed of.
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 16610 OF 2026
1. The appellants are the original defendants. Plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Kavita
2 / 2 2-cas 1246-26 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, the appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the appellate court committed a substantial error of law by holding that the plaintiff is in possession of entire suit land based solely on the entries in the revenue record?
2. Whether the first appellate court misdirected itself in law by holding that the actual physical construction of a permanent structure like "Otta" over suit land does not constitute possession thereby violating the established the promissory title? Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable on 22/10/2026.
JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 10:18:53