ORDER :- Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Gadchiroli in regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2009 thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27-2-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Armori in regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002. The respondent was the owner of the land bearing gat No. 1217 admeasuring 0.78 H.R. at Armori, district Gadchiroli, which was purchased by him from one Smt. Barubai Adkuji Satpute on 12-9-1989. It is the contention of the respondent that an agreement for sale was entered into between the respondent and the appellant along with one Narayan and Ranjana, whereby the entire property was agreed to be purchase, admeasuring 0.78 H. R. on 16-9-1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- of which Rs. 55,000/- were paid as an earnest money. The said transaction coula not be completed as the parties refused to perform their respective parts of their contract. It is further the case of the respondent that the appellant is an adjacent owner and occupier of certain area i.e. 0.16 H. R. unauthorisedly. The respondent got the land converted to non-agricultural use and the layout plan was approved by the revenue officers after paying the visit to the said property which was in possession of the respondent. Excluding the said plots, the permission wa5 accorded for the rest of the property. The respondent demanded possession of the said area and in view of the refusal, the suit was filed by the respondent seeking restoration of possession of the said area of the land.

3. The appellant filed his written statement and denied the contentions of the respondent. It is his contention that at the time of execution of agreement of sale, the appellant was put in possession of the suit property. It is further his contention that he was ready to perform his part of the contract but the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract. He further claimed that the respondent had issued a false notice dated 31-12-1990 to the appellant and all the proposed purchasers informed that the agreement for sale stood cancelled. It is further his contention that thereafter he along with his friend approached the respondent to execute the sale deed but the respondent refused to do so. He further claimed that he was in possession of the suit property and such possession is from 30-3-1993 which is open, continuous and hostile possession to the knowledge of the respondent and as such he became the owner by adverse possession. He admits that the conversion of the land to non-agricultural use was carried out by the respondent, but, however, claims that he had objected before the Collector on that count. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit property jointly with the proposed purchasers.

4. After framing the issues and recording of the evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Armori decreed the suit filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the land shown in schedule-A to the respondent. The learned Judge further restrained the appellant, his servant or any other person from disturbing possession of the respondent of the property described at schedule 'B'.

5. While passing the said judgment, the learned Judge, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant had encroached upon the property of the respondent to the extent of area shown in Schedule 'A'. The learned Judge, on perusal of the cancellation deed dated 18-9-1990 which was at Exh.87, found that the proposed purchasers namely, Narayan and Ranjana executed the cancellation deed in favour of the respondent stating that they along with the appellant were not in position to arrange the remaining amount to be paid to the respondent. Accordingly, the agreement was cancelled on receipt of a sum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document