JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---This second appeal is preferred by original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1977 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1982 dated 14-6-1985 reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit dated 29-6-1982 and granting decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff.

2.The subject matter of the suit was portion of land admeasuring 0.35, decimal, i.e. 13.84 Are out of land Survey No. 143/1 and 144/1 as shown by letters A, B, C, D in the map (Exhibit 30). It is admitted that by registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1955 the plaintiff/respondent purchased field Survey Nos. 143/2, 144/2, 145-146/2, 155 and 150/3 in all measuring 15.09 Are from one Sitaram Parmanand. He also purchased 0.70 decimal of land out of Survey Nos. 143/1 and 144/1, which is the field adjoining the above said fields to the northern side. At the same time, the defendant also purchased 8.80 acres out of field Survey No. 143/1 and 144/1 from Sitaram Parmanand by the same registered sale-deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the date of purchase of the lands by plaintiff and defendant from Sitaram Parmanand, respective portions of the land were taken into possession by them after having got measured by the Patwari of the village and got demarcated by placing a common East-West boundary. It is the case of plaintiff that 0.70 decimal of land out of field Survey No. 143/1 and 144/1 was purchased by him from Sitaram Parmanand on that date with a view to make the Dhura between the lands purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant to make it straight. Some time before filing the suit it is revealed by the plaintiff that defendant has illegally made encroachment upon his land when he dug a drainage for water. He, therefore, got his land measured by cadastral surveyor on 24-5-1974 and it was revealed that the portion of the land measuring 0.35 decimal, i.e. 13.84 Are of his field Survey No. 143/1 and 144/1 has been encroached upon by the defendant as shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map. After giving notice to the defendant which came to be replied by him dated 17-9-1974, the plaintiff brought action against the defendant by filing the aforesaid suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Wardha, and claimed possession of the encroached land so also damages for three years amounting to Rs. 300/-.

3.The appellant/defendant resisted plaintiff's claim by his written statement (Exhibit 11). He admitted that they had purchased their respective land on the same day from Sitaram Parmanand. He, however, denied that plaintiff got measured his land and it was found that defendant has made encroachment upon plaintiff's land acquiring possession of 0.35 decimal of land. He contended that he had no knowledge of the measurement of the land by the plaintiff. He contended that he had filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1975 against the plaintiff for a way through his field. He has further contended that it is the plaintiff who has encroached upon the field of defendant to the extent of 14 Are. He got his land measured on 22-10-1975 and thereby it was ascertained that plaintiff has occupied 14 Area of land out of his land bearing Survey No. 143-144/1. Defendant has claimed possession of that encroached portion of the land from plaintiff and for that he has preferred counter-claim.

4.Plaintiff and defendant led oral and documentary evidence and went on trial with the issues framed at Exhibit 14. Plaintiff placed reliance on the evidence of Krushna Deotale (P.W. 1) who measured the land of plaintiff and found that there was encroachment by defendant to the extent of 13.84 Are (0.35 decimal). As against this, defendant led the evidence of Vishnu Ramchandra Bhusari (D.W. 5) who measured defendant's land and found that plaintiff has made encroachment in defendant's land to the extent of 14 Ares. The learned trial Court on appreciating the evidence led by plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document