JUDGMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J.:---This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay dated 26-10-1994 in S.C. Suit No. 6829/75 by the original defendant No. 1 the appellant herein.

2.The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 and his widowed mother-original plaintiff No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit; against the present appellant-defendant No. 1 and one Lalchand Gurjan Yadav as defendant No. 2 who died during the pendency of the suit but his legal heirs were not brought on record and the learned Judge in the order of decree declared a suit abated against defendant No. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 22 herein are the tenants of the suit property and respondents Nos. 23 to 25 are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 1.

3.The facts of the suit in brief are that, one Shri Jamnaprasad Yadav, the deceased father of the respondent No. 1 owned two plots of land admeasuring 250 sq. yards bearing C.T.S. No. 376(Pt.) and 277 sq. mts. bearing C.T.S. No. 377 out of Survey No. 194 (Pt.) situated at Kanjur Village, Bhandup, Bombay on tenancy basis alongwith one Ramdas Shirvalkar Yadav and Ramdhani Dattani from Khot of Bhandup Shri Pratapsingh Mathuradas since 1950. It is the case of the plaintiff that in addition to the said plots, said Jamnaprasad Yadav was in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of adjoining plot out of Survey No. 194 bearing C.T.S. No. 374 and claimed to be the owner of the said plot by adverse possession. The plan attached with the plaint showing the structures of chawls constructed thereon have been owned by said Shri Jamnaprasad individually and jointly with Shri Ramdas Shrivalkar and Ramdhani Dattani. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire plot consisting about 1650 sq. yard together with structures was alleged to be in possession of said Jamnaprasad during his lifetime and after his death, the plaintiffs alleged to be in possession since May, 1972. It is the case of the plaintiff that the structures of chawls on C.T.S. No. 376 (Pt.) and 377 (Pt.) of Survey No. 194 (Pt.) were constructed in or about 1952 by said Jamnaprasad and the same were rented out to the tenants by him. It is alleged in the plaint that the said Jamnaprasad had put up a structure consisting of 14 rooms known as Chawl No. 4 on C.T.S. No. 374 of Survey No. 194 (Pt.) in or about 1965-66 which is the disputed subject matter of the suit and this appeal.

4.It reveals from the record that in the year 1964, survey of the structures constructed on the plot bearing C.T.S. No. 376 (Pt.) and 377 (Pt.) of Survey No. 194 (Pt.) was carried out and they were surveyed by the City Survey Department and it was noted in the right of record the name of said Jamnaprasad as owner of the constructed structures known as chawls while the plot bearing C.T.S. No. 374 of Survey No. 194 (Pt.) was shown as open land. It is stated that the plaintiff received Sanads in respect of Plot bearing C.T.S. No. 376 and 377 in 1973. It is also stated that plaintiff did not receive Sanad or any card in respect of C.T.S. No. 374 of Survey No. 194 (i.e. disputed plot) though alleged structures-chawl No. 4 were there on the land since 1965-66.

5.It is further stated that because of old age of Jamnaprasad who was 90 years old and as he was unable to manage the suit property, he had asked the original defendant No. 2 deceased Lalchand Yadav who was his nephew, to look after the management of the suit property and entrusted to collect the rent of Chawl No. 4. It is alleged in the plaint that though the defendant No. 2 was collecting rent, he was not giving account to said Jamnaprasad. The said Jamnaprasad died in 1988. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 sold away the suit property bearing Chawl No. 4 to the present appellant-defendant No. 1 by executing the sale deed in 1973. Since then, the appellant-defendant No. 1 was collecting the rent. It also reveals from the record that appellant-defendant No. 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document