Manisha Chandrashekar Patil & Ors. v. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.

…Appellant

…Respondent

Case No: Misc. Appeal No. 83/2009

Date of Judgement: 26/04/2023

Judges:

Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Appellant: Mr N.J. Devashree, Advocate.

For Respondent: Ms Drishti Shah, Advocate.

Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

Arguments by the Parties:

The Intervener (Rajmohan Narsingh Rao) was admittedly not in possession of the subject property in consequence of the sale and had even approached the High Court seeking possession of the property from Mrs. Gulab by filing Suit No. 894 of 1975, which was dismissed for default on 19.06.1989. The Intervener has no case that the legal representatives of Pandurang More or Gulab More had voluntarily handed over the subject property to him, and how he regained possession is not explained. The trespasser of a property cannot defend his right over the property in any manner because the possessory right of a trespasser is not legally sustainable.

Cases Cited:

Sections and Laws Referred:

Section 29 (Application of certain provisions of Income-tax Act)

Section 30 (Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal)

Code of Civil Procedure:

Order XXI Rule 63 (Attachment of immovable property)

Transfer of Property Act:

Section 53A (Part performance)

Income Tax Act:

Second and Third Schedules