The court emphasized the importance of establishing the nexus between documents and the suit property and highlighted the requirement for admissible evidence in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - I have heard the arguments of the learned senior advocates representing both the sides as also the other advocates.

2. The second appeal was admitted by the order dated 13-02-2017 on following substantial questions of law :-

(i) Whether findings by the trial court, reversed by the appellate court, are sustainable on the touchstone of the guidelines given by the apex Court in case of 'Santosh Hazari V/s. Purushottam Tiwari died by LRs.' reported in 2001 (3) SCC 179 ?

(ii) Whether it can be said that non observance of procedure under Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, has caused prejudice to the parties ?

(iii) Whether evidence on record adduced by the parties bears out nexus between grant under Exhibit-65 and CTS 18311 ?

3. The facts giving rise to such substantial questions can be summarised as under :-

(a) The appellants are the original plaintiffs who filed a suit for declaration of their title to the suit property described as CTS no. 18311 corresponding to municipal house no. 5-4-76/P of Osmanpura, aurangabad and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the respondents who are the original defendants from obstructing their possession over the suit property.

(b) The appellants claimed that their father was the original owner of the suit property and was in its exclusive possession during his lifetime till 1970. after demise they have been in its exclusive possession. They paid monthly taxes and their names were recorded in the municipal record.

(c) They averred that on account of their occupation, they migrated to Gujarat. The city survey was conducted in their absence in the year 1971. Though during that enquiry, the property was shown as owned by the respondent no. 4 - Education Society, it was recorded behind their back erroneously. They further averred that subsequently even the area of the suit property that was recorded in the city survey record was reduced from 33365 square meters to 21.618 square meters without assigning any reason, thereby carving out city survey no. 18311/1 and shown to be in possession of the respondent no. 4.

(d) They further averred that the respondent no. 4 was allotted only portion admeasuring 5 acre 30 Guntha, by the order of the Collector in the year 1963 which was allotted City Survey no. 18314. There is no such similar order of allotment of City Survey no. 18311/1 in its favour. Taking advantage of their absence, the respondents are trying to encroach over the suit property hence they prayed for declaration of title and injunction.

(e) The respondents by their respective written statements denied title and possession of the appellants over the suit property. They asserted that the suit property was part and parcel of land which vested in the State Government and was allotted to various government departments and the respondent no. 4 Education Society.

(f) The trial court decreed the suit by holding that the suit property was granted by the Nizam by his order Exhibit 65 in the name of one Mohammed Kasim who subsequently sold it to the appellants' father under a sale deed. It also concluded that the respondents had failed to prove that the suit property was owned by the Government.

(g) By the judgment and order under challenge, in an appeal on behalf of the State, the district court has quashed and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned senior advocate Mr. Dixit for the appellants would vehemently submit that the copy of grant issued by the Nizam was produced on the record along with its English translation. Even a copy of the sale deed under which the appellants' father purchased it was also produced on record. These documents were sufficient to uphold exclusive title of the appellants. The trial court had rightly considered such ancient documentary evidence while upholding the appellants' title. There was no perversity or arbitrariness much less any illegality. The district court ha