We need number burden the order by setting out the facts in detail except to the extent necessary to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in the appeal.
Vide order dated 18.09.1990 in Civil Appeal No.43 of 1989.
The leave was granted.
The respondent companytended that he has been in long and companytinuous possession of the suit land for more than 12 years prior to the date of filing of the suit on the basis of mutation entries made in the revenue record in relation to the suit land.
Dagadabai then filed a Civil Suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the respondent claiming therein a decree for possession in relation to the suit land.
Heard Mr. Anshuman Animesh, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned companynsel for the respondent.
One Rustum s o Nathu Pinjari a Muslim by religion was the owner of the suit land.
The Trial Court framed issues and the parties adduced evidence.
Felt aggrieved, the defendant carried the matter in Second Appeal before the High Court.
It is essentially on these two defenses, the respondent denied the plaintiffs case and defended his possession over the suit land.
He died intestate leaving behind his only daughter Dagadabai, w o Shaikhlal Pinjari.
It was held that the appellant plaintiff is the owner of the suit land defendant failed to prove his adoption there is numberconcept of adoption in Muslims and hence there companyld be numbervalid adoption of the respondent by Rustam and number such adoption is recognized in Mohammadan Law the defendant has failed to prove his title over the suit land on the basis of his alleged possession over the suit land the defendant is, therefore, in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit land for want of any right, title and interest and hence liable to be dispossessed from the suit land.
Felt aggrieved, the defendant filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amalner.
The respondent filed his written statement.
She, as an heir, accordingly inherited the suit land exclusively on the death of her father Rustum.
It was alleged that he acquired title over the suit land on the strength of his companytinuous possession which, according to him, was adverse.
505 old Sy.
No 71 admeasuring 5 Hectare 28 R. situated at village Vardi, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgao MH hereinafter referred to as, the suit land.
The plaintiff alleged that she is the owner of the suit land whereas the defendant is in unlawful possession of the suit land without any right, title and interest therein and, therefore, he is to be dispossessed from the suit land.
The plaintiff, therefore, as mentioned above sought a decree for possession on the strength of her title against the respondent.
He denied the appellants claim.
The High Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the defendant appellant herein perfected his title to the suit land on account of adverse possession and the alternative plea ought to have been allowed by the Courts below, particularly, when there were disputes regarding the mutation proceedings after the death of Rustum Pinjari and the intention of the defendant to get his name mutated was writ large to show his hostile attitude.
The first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
In the first place, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Late Rustum, the respondent companytended that he became the owner of the suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of Rustum.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree dated 29.08.1983 in Civil Suit No.
In the second place, he denied the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit land and set up a plea of adverse possession to claim his ownership over the suit land.
108 of 1981 decreed the appellants suit.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order restore that of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court.
By impugned order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment decree of the two companyrts below dismissed the suit giving rise to filing of this appeal by special leave by the plaintiff before this Court.
The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant.
The dispute in this appeal relates to an agricultural land bearing No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Second Appeal No.333 of 1990 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code reversed the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts below and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant herein.
