The Appellate Court reversed the two findings of the Trial Court.
The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
DEEPAK MANSUKHANI IS BEING USED BY MR.
In other words, the Appellate Court also held that the respondent plaintiff was number able to prove the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 in accordance with law and hence numberdecree companyld be passed in respondents favour in relation to the suit land on the strength of such unproved sale deed.
It was alleged that the appellant, in March 1985, un authorisedly entered into the suit land and erected one hut on one portion of the suit land and hence, the suit is filed by the respondent seeking possession of the suit land and also claiming the mesne profits from the appellant.
It was then averred that Hirabai entered into an agreement with the appellant on 22.05.1972 to sell the suit land and pursuant to the agreement, was placed in possession of the suit land.
Heard Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The High Court held that the respondent has proved the sale deed as required in law and, therefore, he was entitled to claim decree for possession on the basis of the sale deed Ex.
P 31 .
The Trial Court framed the issues and parties adduced their evidence.
One was in relation to the bar companytained in Section 91 of the Act and the other relating to the plea of adverse possession.
Felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the respondent plaintiff filed Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code,1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code in the High Court Nagpur Bench .
Since the appellant did number remove the hut, the respondent filed a suit being Civil Suit No.1210/85 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur against the appellant claiming possession and mesne profits in relation to the suit land.
According to her, the suit land was allotted to one Dhondiba Lodhi by the Society, who then companystructed his house on the land and on his death, his wife Hirabai became its owner.
The appellant defendant , however, did number file any cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code to challenge the adverse findings recorded by the First Appellate Court and, therefore, those findings attained finality.
It was alleged that the respondent was placed in possession of the suit land pursuant to the sale deed.
The Appellate Court, by judgment dated 26.08.1996, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
This led the respondent to serve legal numberice dated 22.04.1985 on the appellant asking her to remove the hut, which was illegally erected by her on the suit land.
This, in substance, was her defense.
In other words, the Appellate Court reversed the two findings of the Trial Court and held that, firstly, the bar companytained in Section 91 of the Act does number hit the civil suit and hence maintainable in Civil Court and secondly, the appellant defendant failed to prove her adverse possession over the suit land and hence cannot be declared the owner of the suit land on the strength of her alleged adverse possession over it.
P 31 as an owner against the appellant.
Felt aggrieved, the defendant filed the present appeal by way of special leave against the judgment of the High Court before this Court.
P 31 , the suit was dismissed.
By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal and while setting aside of the judgments decrees of the two companyrts below decreed the appellants suit.
The respondent, felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, filed First Appeal before the 3 rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur being Regular Civil Appeal No.152 of 1989.
The suit was founded essentially on the allegation, inter alia, that the respondent is the owner of the suit land having purchased the same from the Society by registered sale deed dated 29.12.1981 Ex.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as, in our opinion, the High Court is right in its reasoning and its companyclusion.
By judgment decree dated 31.01.1989, the Trial Court dismissed the respondents suit.
P 31 against the appellant.
hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
The High Court framed the following question of law Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff appellant to examine his vendor and attesting witnesses to prove his title to the suit property in a suit for recovery of possession against the encroacher when there is a registered sale deed executed by his vendor in his favour?
However, since the Appellate Court companyfirmed the finding of the Trial Court insofar as it pertained to number properly proving the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 Ex.
As observed supra, the only question involved in the appeal before the High Court was whether the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 Ex.
It was averred that since then the appellant companytinued to remain in possession of the suit land without any interruption from anyone and has accordingly acquired ownership of the suit land by virtue of she being in adverse possession of the suit land.
OM PARKASH SHARMA 26.08.1996 passed by the 3 rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.152/1989 which arose out of judgment decree dated 31.01.1989 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.1210/1985, which had dismissed the respondents civil suit.
P 31 inasmuch as the sale deed had some kind of discrepancies and also numberattesting witness was examined secondly, the appellant was in possession of the suit land since 1972 and hence perfected her title over it by adverse possession thirdly, the dispute, which is the subject matter of civil suit, pertained to the business of the Society and hence companyered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act in short the Act and is, accordingly, barred under Section 163 1 of the Act.
The respondent purchased the suit land from the Society vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.1981 and was, accordingly, placed in possession of the suit land by the Society.
It was held that, firstly, the respondent failed to prove the sale deed Ex.
The appellant filed written statement and denied the respondents claim.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In our opinion also, the respondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore, rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit land on the strength of the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 Ex.
This appeal is filed by the defendant against the final judgment and order dated 11/12.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Second Appeal No.304/1997 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK MANSUKHANI herein and reversed the judgment decree dated Date 2017.11.23 160019 IST Reason SIGNER CARD OF MR.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that since the sale deed was number properly proved, the respondents suit was dismissed whereas the High Court reversed the said finding and held that the sale deed was duly proved as required in law and accordingly passed the decree for possession against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
In March 1985, it was numbericed by the respondent that the appellant had encroached upon the suit land owned by him and erected a kacha hut on one portion of the suit land without any authority.
The dispute relates to plot No.12 of field No.13/3, P. H. 44 situated in Mouza Parsodi Tahsil, District Nagpur admeasuring 1625 sq.ft.
P 31 in relation to the suit land was duly proved by the respondent.
The suit land originally belonged to one Housing Co Operative Society called Subhash Nagar Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur hereinafter referred to as Society .
