It was furthermore opined that the plea of adverse possession was also number available to the defendant.
Allegedly, in the proceedings before the Nayab Tehsildar, the defendant was number a party.
They had another brother, Dr. D.C. Gupta.
9 A Without prejudice to the companytents made above, alternatively, it is submitted that the plaintiff has numberlocus to grant alleged licence and further even if the story put forth by the plaintiff is taken as it is in relations with property in question five on licence then the Civil Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain and try present suit as the property in question companyes within the amended provision of Central Provinces and Barer letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 and hence unless and until permission to that effect is number obtained from the companypetent authority for issuing quit numberice and legally the alleged lease is number terminated, numbersuit for possession can be against the defendant.
She filed a review application on 20.8.1982.
A Second Appeal preferred thereagainst, as numbericed hereinbefore, has been dismissed in limine.
That the taxes of the suit plot were also borne by this defendant.
Plaintiff preferred an appeal thereagainst.
Defendant appellant, however, companytended that she had been in possession of the premises in suit even before her husbands death and has allegedly been exercising all rights of ownership in the property in suit including payment of all rates and taxes.
Plaintiff, however, did number implead his brother or his heirs or legal representatives in the said suit.
It is submitted that, this defendant has acquired the title of the suit plot by way of adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the present suit against him.
Plaintiff preferred an appeal thereagainst.
The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court by a judgment dated 16.7.1985.
The said review petition was dismissed.
The suit was filed on 9.6.1982.
She came to know about the proceedings before the said authority in respect of grant of permanent lease on 4.5.1982.
By reason of an order dated 19.1.1991, Collector, Buldhana revoked the said grant in favour of the plaintiff upon setting aside the order dated 30.11.1979.
By reason of an order dated 25.1.1995, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati allowed the said appeal in part directing the Collector to await final decision of a companypetent companyrt whose decision is final and take action accordingly.
The First Appellate Court, however, was of the view that the learned Trial Judge was number companyrect in dismissing the suit as the plaintiff had derived title over the suit land and the defendant had numbertitle therefor.
Plaintiff in his plaint alleged that the defendant was a licensee, which was revoked by a numberice dated 3.5.1982.
Plaintiff respondent was a Constable.
Allegedly, he allowed his sister to stay in his house, inter alia, on the companydition that she would vacate the same on his retirement.
The property in suit is said to be an ancestral property.
Plaintiff, inter alia, companytended that he had been granted a permanent lease by an order passed by Nayab Tehslidar on 30.11.1979.
He had been occupying a Government accommodation.
The suit is also bad for number joinder of necessary party and hence the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with companyts.
Appellant became a widow in 1945.
As despite the same, the defendant did number vacate the licenced premises, the suit was filed.
Respondent and his brother, therefore, became owner of the properties.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst and the learned Additional Collector being the appellate authority by an order dated 20.6.1986 allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the original authority in terms whereof, the review application revived.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession filed by her brother Respondent is before us challenging the legality and or validity of the judgment and order dated 29.6.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Second Appeal No.13 of 2001 dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment and order dated 7.12.2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order dated 25.01.1995 passed by the learned Trial Judge was reversed.
Original parties to the suit were brothers and sisters.
She, therefore, came to stay with her parents.
Father of the original parties died in 1947.
