JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:-Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 the original plaintiff has come up in second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court on 19-7-1987 in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 131 of 1984 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 20-9-1984 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 133 of 1981 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of possession on the strength of title as well as on the ground that the defendant has made encroachment to the extent of 2 gunthas on the land of the former.

2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:

The plaintiffs is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 75/4-A situated at Nandura, district Buldana. It is contended that the plaintiff had purchased the land of 7 gunthas from the erstwhile owner Motisingh by virtue of four different sale-deeds executed by Motisingh on 2-7-1974, 29-8-1974, 4-10-1974 and 5-2-1975. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the said land owned by him and the defendant has made encroachment to the extent of 2 gunthas on the said land. Therefore, a notice dated 2-4-1976 was served on the defendant calling upon to restore the possession of 2 gunthas of land but in vain. The second notice dated 26-11-1980 was also served on the defendant but in vain. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title as well as on the basis that the defendant is in possession as a consequence of encroachment to the extent of 2 gunthas of land.

3 The defendant combated the claim of the plaintiff by his written statement and denied that he has made any encroachment on the land of the plaintiff. He sets up a plea that he is in continuous possession of the said land since the year 1962 as an owner thereof. He contended in the written statement that the plaintiff did not become the owner of the suit land by virtue of the sale-deeds executed by Motisingh that all the sale-deeds were nominal and fabricated and do not confer any right on him

4 The trial Court framed the issues, out of which following two issues are important -

1. Does the plaintiff prove that he is an owner of field S. No. 75/4-A at Nandura admeasuring 7 gunthas of land?

2. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant committed encroachment over 2 gunthas of land belonging to him?

The findings recorded by the trial Court on the above issues are:

1. Ownership is proved to the land in Exhs. 30 to 33 but not of the suit land.

2. No.

5. The plaintiff had examined himself and the witness and relied on the documentary as well as oral evidence. As against this, the defendant did not examine himself nor he has examined any witness on his behalf. The trial Court on consideration of the documentary as well as the oral evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership of the land admeasuring 2 gunthas and consequently dismissed the suit. The plaintiff had challenged in appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The Appellate Court examined the material on record and was of the view that the encroachment has not been proved and though the defendant had taken different pleas, the plaintiff is not entitled to take the advantage of the same because the plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case. The Appellate Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of both the courts below have been challenged in this second appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. Khapre, learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is, whether the concurrent findings of both the courts below are liable to be upset on the ground that there has been an error of law apparent on the record

Click Here to Read the rest of this document