JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J:-This is an appeal by original defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 369 of 1984 challenging the judgment and decree passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1988 dated 25th October, 1989 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff directing the appellant-defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of the land bearing Gat No. 356, area 0.64 Hectares.

2. Respondent No. 1 Jadhavrao Sadashio Lanjewar, as a original plaintiff, filed the aforesaid civil suit on the averments in the plaint that, by virtue of sale deed dated 14th October, 1982 (Exh. 38), he purchased land admeasuring 0.64 hectare from Gat No. 366 of village Mohadi Khapa for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6,500/- from the original defendant No. 2 Nago Soma Patel. He was also put in possession of the said land by defendant No. 2 Nago. After taking possession, plaintiff cultivated the land in the year 1983 and his name has been recorded in the record of rights. However, taking advantage of absence of plaintiff at village Mohadi Khapa, original defendant No. 1 had illegally taken possession of the land. Plaintiff also asked defendant No. 1 to hand over possession. However, defendant continued to remain in possession and, therefore, plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of possession of land, so also for enquiry into mesne profit.

3. Original defendant No. 1 appellant resisted plaintiffs' claim by her written statement (Exh. 13) and inter alia contended that the suit land was owned by her husband deceased Tantu. Her husband had incurred loan of Rs. 500/- from one Tejram and for security of the loan, her husband had executed a false deed in favour of Tejram. She further contended that the loan of Rs. 500/- together with interest of Rs. 400/- was paid by Tantu to Tejram and the latter had agreed to destroy the sale deed. Taking advantage of the sale deed that remained with Tejram, it is contended that Tejram had executed a false sale deed in favour of original defendant No. 2 and the latter, in turn, executed the sale deed (Exh. 38) in favour of original plaintiff. As such, defendant No. 1 had denied that the plaintiff has become owner of the field by virtue of the sale deed (Exh. 38) executed by defendant No. 2. It is alternative, defendant No. 2 contended that, neither Tejram nor defendant No. 2 Nago nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land at any point of time. It was defendant No. 1 who was in possession all along and during the life time of her husband and therefore, defendant contented that she has perfected her title by way of adverse possession and hence, she claimed that the suit be dismissed on that count.

4. It is significant to note that defendant No. 2 Nago did not contest the claim of plaintiff. On the other hand, he was supported the plaintiff and he has given evidence before the trial Court as a witness for plaintiff.

5. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the sale deed in his favour but the consideration shows therein has not been proved and therefore, no title in respect of the suit land passed or vested in plaintiff. The trial Court further held that throughout the suit land was in possession of defendant No. 1 alone and neither plaintiff nor defendant No. 2 was in possession thereof. The trial Court has also held that defendant No. 1 has become owner by adverse possession. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

6. The first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1988, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit directing defendant No. 1 to deliver possession and also directed the trial Court to make an enquiry in respect of further mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appellate Court found that plaintiff acquired title in respect of the suit land on the basis of sale deed (Exh. 38). In that, the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document