For the sake of companyvenience and clarity the parties would be referred in the same rank assigned to them in the suit.
1 and 2 through the companymunication dated 06.12.1986 about the purchase and had sought for payment of the rents.
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 13.10.1998 decreed the suit and directed the defendants No.1 to 7 to handover actual physical possession of the suit property and also to pay the amount of Rs.162/. Further, enquiry regarding mesne profits was also ordered.
The High Court having taken numbere of the rival companytentions has by a detailed order dismissed the revision application.
The defendants No.1 and 2 claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.315/1998.
8450/2019 is against the order dated 15.10.2018 arising out of execution proceedings in regular darkhast No.
Since the claim of the appellants in C.A. No.8450/2019 is in the capacity of legal representatives of the deceased original defendant No.5, the case put forth by them will be companysidered by referring to them as defendant No.5.
The defendants No.
1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective written statement.
1 and 2 failed to pay the same and since according to the plaintiff the defendants were also number using the premises for the purpose for which it was let out, the plaintiff termed the defendants No.
The said defendants however companytended that they were number informed about the purchase by the plaintiff.
The defendants in the suit were issued with the suit summons.
The plaintiff thereafter secured the Revenue entries to be recorded in his name.
The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings had framed as many as eleven issues.
1 and 2 opposed the claim made in the plaint Page 3 of 26 on merits, apart from companytending that the suit was barred by limitation.
The companynected appeal in C.A. No.
It is in that background, the defendants No.1 and 2 claiming to be aggrieved by the companycurrent judgments are before this Court in this appeal.
The plaintiff informed the defendants No.
3 and 5 did number choose to file the written statement while the defendants No.
15 of 2016.
The cross objections filed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 6 was also Page 4 of 26 dismissed.
4, 6 and 7 did number appear before the Trial Court and were therefore, proceeded exparte.
9/1/A measuring 22 guntas situate at Chahurana Bk.,
1 and 2 as defaulters and instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.253/1989 seeking eviction of the defendants No.
The defendants No.
The defendants No.
The fact that their predecessor had taken the premises under lease deed dated 22.05.1928 for a period of 31 years on the annual rent of Rs.31/ was admitted and that the lease deed expired by efflux of time on 22.05.1959 was also stated.
The parties in order to discharge their burden cast under the issues had tendered evidence.
The defendants No.1 and 2 thereafter companytinued as the tenants.
The defendants No.1 and 2 claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment were before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in CRA No.112/2012.
The defendants No.
The Appellate Court having adverted to the rival companytentions has dismissed the appeal through the judgment dated 18.02.2012.
The property bearing S.No.
The analogous Civil Revision Applications filed by the remaining defendants in CRA No.113/2012 and 114/2012 were also disposed of by the same companymon judgment dated 20.07.2015.
1 and 2 as also the defendants No.3 to 7 whom the plaintiff described as the subtenants in the premises.
As on the date of purchase the predecessor of defendants No.1 and 2 was the tenant in respect of the suit Page 2 of 26 property paying the rent of Rs.31/ per annum.
Taluka Nagar, Ahmednagar District presently bearing Plot No.19 within Ahmednagar Municipal Limits, measuring 2656 sq mtrs hereinafter referred to as the suit property which earlier belonged to Deshmukh Brothers was purchased by the plaintiff under a Sale Deed dated 08.08.1986.
Hence both these appeals were taken together for hearing and are being disposed by this companymon judgment.
S. Bopanna,J. Though different orders, dated 20.07.2015 passed in CRA No.112/2012 and dated 15.10.2018 passed in CRA No.157/2018 are assailed in these two appeals, issues for companysideration however arise out of the companymon lis between the parties based on the judgment passed in the Regular Civil Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Suit No.253/1989 to which the appellants in C.A. Date 2019.11.14 141015 IST Reason No.9834/2016 were defendants No.1 and 2 while the Page 1 of 26 predecessor of appellants in C.A. No.8450/2019 was defendant No.5.
The brief facts numbericed for the purpose of disposal of these appeals is as hereunder.
