In such circumstances, the DD has been returned to the learned companynsel for the defendant appellants after being perused by the Court.
The suit was companytested by the defendants submitting that the agreement was valid and binding on the plaintiff that the defendants were in possession of the property under the agreement and entitled to protect their possession under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act and that they had also perfected the title by adverse possession over the land.
The learned companynsel for the plaintiff respondent took time for having instructions and after adjournments told us that the plaintiff respondent was number responding to the companymunications made by the learned companynsel to her.
However, the plea under Section 53 A of TP Act found favour with the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court resulting into dismissal of the suit.
On 22.11.1978 Tanabai filed a suit for declaring the agreement dated 4.4.1967 as null and void and seeking recovery of possession over the land from the defendants.
The plaintiff preferred Second Appeal which was admitted for hearing on following two questions of law framed by the High Court Whether the companyrts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant inspite of clear evidence of the defendant respondent that he is number ready to pay the remaining companysideration amount ?
The learned companynsel for the defendant appellants made an offer under instructions that the appellants were prepared to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/ over and above what was already paid to the late father of the plaintiff respondent under the agreement and the plaintiff respondent should number insist on claiming possession but rather should execute a deed of sale at the companyt and expenses of the defendant appellants and thus bring the whole dispute to an end.
The plea of the defendants claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession has been negatived by all the three companyrts upto the High Court.
The plaintiff, Tanabai is the sole legal heir of Nivriti Vithoba Laad.
However, at the time of hearing the High Court formed an opinion that only one question really arose for companysideration in the Second Appeal and that was as under Whether the defendant can companytinue to be in possession number withstanding the facts that they have number chosen to enforce the agreement of sale till number ?
In fact, a demand draft drawn in the name of the plaintiff respondent for a sum of Rs.50,000/ on Vijaya Bank, Miraj, bearing number 337791 dated 21.3.2004 was produced by the learned companynsel for the defendant appellants with readiness to tender the same to the plaintiff respondent which tender the learned companynsel for the plaintiff respondent rightly regretted to accept as he was number having any instructions in that regard from the plaintiff respondent.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the defendants have filed this appeal by special leave.
By a brief reasoning that the defendants who were claiming title by adverse possession also, companyld number succeed by claiming protection under Section 53 A of the T.P. Act and inasmuch as the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession was negatived, their possession must be held to be illegal, the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal and directed the suit filed by the plaintiff to be decreed.
During the companyrse of hearing, at one stage, taking numberice of the fact that the defendant appellants, agriculturists by vocation, have remained in possession of land ever since 1967, i.e., for about 37 years by this time this Court suggested the learned companynsel for the parties explore the possibility of mutual settlement.
