1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.7.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Darwha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2004, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 28.11.2003, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Digras, in Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2001, whereby the suit was dismissed.

2. The present second appeal was admitted by this Court, on 6.2.2008, on the following substantial questions of law, thus:

"1. Whether the Courts were justified in dismissing the suit for possession, as filed by the plaintiff, when it was not in dispute that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant and the decree passed in the said suit was executed and a sale-deed was registered through Court in favour of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the Courts were further justified in holding that the plaintiff had not proved his title, without considering the evidence rendered by the parties on record on the said issue?

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff could have been dismissed merely on the ground that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the forcible dispossession on 08.06.1996?"

3. The appellant/plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 112 of 2001, in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Digras, with a prayer for possession of the suit agricultural land bearing Survey No.12/03 with area of 1H 41R situated at village Belora, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal.

4. It is the grievance on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that both the Courts below ignored the judgment and order as well as final decree in former Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1991 between the same parties wherein the respondent/defendant had sold the suit land to the appellant/plaintiff. The suit land which was owned by the respondent/defendant was agreed to be sold in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 5.9.1988 for consideration of Rs.21,000/-. Cash amount in the sum of Rs. 14,000/-as earnest money was paid on the said day by the appellant/plaintiff and an agreement to sale (souda chitthi) was executed whereby the appellant/plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land admeasuring 3 acres 20 gunthas (1H 41 R). Thus, pursuant to agreement to sell the suit land, respondent/defendant had agreed to pay balance amount of consideration in the sum of Rs.7,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed. The suit for specific performance of contract was contested and following issues were framed in that suit, thus:

"1. Does the plaintiff prove that on 5.9.88 defendant agreed to sell his suit land in consideration of Rs.21,000/-? ... Yes

2. Does the plaintiff prove that on the same day he took possession of suit land? ... Yes

3. Does the plaintiff prove that he paid Rs. 14,000/- to defendant as earnest money? ...Yes

4. Does plaintiff prove that in 1989 he paid Rs.4,600/- to defendant towards remaining consideration? ... No

5. Does the defendant prove that he made a loan transaction with defendant and signed on blank stamp paper as security for the amount? ... No

6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? ... As per final order

7. What order and decree? ..... As per final order.

The suit of the appellant/plaintiff was decreed against the respondent/defendant whereby the respondent/defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the suit land by paying balance amount of consideration or depositing the same in the Court within time allowed. This decree became final and satisfied in Regular Darkhast No.18 of 1993 sale deed was executed through the executing Court on 9.8.1995.

5. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant took forcible possession from the appellant/plaintiff despite the fact that the sale deed was executed, in respect of the suit land, on 9.8.1985 by the executing Court of which the respondent/defendant was aware and p