A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 28-11-2003 passed by 3rd Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Wardha in Reg. C.A. No. 149/1996, decreeing the civil suit filed by respondent/plaintiff-Ramrao by reversing the judgment decree dated 19-9-1996 passed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Wardha, in Reg. C.S. No. 406/1988, the present second appeal was filed by the appellants/defendant.

Facts:

The respondent/plaintiff-Ramrao filed a suit for possession of the suit premises denominating it as a tenanted premises leased out by him to the appellants/defendant. The case was that he and his brother Amrutrao had purchased the entire suit house by registered sale deed dated 3-12-1952. There was a family partition amongst the two brothers on 5-1-1962 and the area of the suit house came to his share. Accordingly, it was mutated and taxes were being paid to the Gram Panchayat, Anji (Mothi), after dividing the house into two parts. The suit block was originally let out to Anji Co-operative Society for running a grain shop. The society vacated the same on 30-4-1972 and, therefore, the premises was let out from 1-10-1972 to the appellants/defendant by Bhade Chitti dated 17-9-1972. From March-1981, the rent was increased to Rs. 100/- from Rs. 50/- p.m. and the original defendant had promised to vacate the premises by the end of March-1982 as per agreement of lease dated 15-3-1981 and that the rent was paid up to 28-2-1986. The appellant/defendant, in the written statement, contended that, in fact, the suit premises were purchased by him by sale deed dated 20-7-1960 from Amrutrao, elder brother of plaintiff-Ramrao. The respondent/plaintiff, however, denied execution of the sale deed or execution of Power of Attorney in favour of Amrutrao for the said sale and contended that on 4-4-1988, he determined the tenancy of the original defendant and thereafter filed the suit for possession along with arrears of rent. As earlier stated, the defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff and on the contrary, by amending the pleadings exhaustively in the written statement, stated that he purchased the suit property from Ramrao through his Power of Attorney-Amrutrao. The defendant also denied the very title of the plaintiff and his brother Amrutrao, which they claimed to have acquired by sale deed dated 3-12-1952. The parties went on trial. Original defendant Virbhan-father of the appellants, was very old at the time of evidence and, therefore, his son-Power of Attorney holder, entered the witness box. He also examined witnesses while plaintiff examined himself and his witnesses. The trial Court, thereafter, framed in all 10 issues and finally dismissed the suit holding that the original defendant, in fact, was owner by virtue of the sale deed dated 2-8-1960, executed by Amrutrao as Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff-Ramrao. The respondent, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, filed Reg. C.A. No. 149/1996 before District Judge, Wardha which was decided by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this Second Appeal. Submissions:

2. In support of the appeal, Mr. S.V. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions:

(i) The lower Appellate Court committed serious error in holding that the appellants were tenant of the respondent-plaintiff, which finding is perverse when, in fact, the appellants are owners of the suit property.

(ii) The lower Appellate Court committed error in rejecting the document of sale deed Exh. 86 dated 2-8-1960 in favour of the appellants for total consideration of Rs. 1,000/- and the said finding is perverse. The reason for rejection of Exh. 86 was that it was a certified copy of the sale deed and that the appellants did not prove the fact of loss of original document of sale deed. Mr. Purohit submitted that there is unchallenged evidence on record about loss of original sale deed and, therefore, what more the evidence could be brought on record, wh