The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file a suit for declaration of title when ownership is contested, and the burden of proof to establish the legality and validity of a registered sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. In this second appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree, dated 24.11.2017, passed by the learned District Judge-8 Amaravati, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012, passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking a declaration, permanent injunction and possession of a portion of the suit premises was dismissed.

4. In this second appeal, the notice was issued on the following two substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the findings rendered by the Courts below on the question of ownership and possession of the appellant in the suit property, were perverse in the face of registered sale deed dated 15.05.2004 (Exh.51) placed on record?

2. What would be the effect of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anthula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 594, on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in that light, whether the concurrent judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are sustainable?

5. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law need to be stated in brief.

The appellant shall be referred to as the plaintiff and respondent shall be referred as the defendant in this judgment. Plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession of the suit plot, described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the basis of the sale deed dated 15.05.2004. According to the plaintiff, the late husband of the defendant was the owner of the suit plot. The late husband of the defendant sold the suit plot to him by sale deed dated 15.05.2004, on acceptance of consideration of Rs. 77,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Only). The plaintiff further stated that at the time of his visit to the suit plot, he found that a portion of the plot shown by the letters E, F, G, H, E in the plaint map was encroached by erecting permanent construction. The plaintiff asserted his title as well as the wrongful act of the encroachment of defendant’s by his notice dated 05.01.2006 and called upon the defendant to remove the encroachment. The defendant, by her reply dated 10.02.2006, denied the execution of the sale deed as well as the alleged encroachment over the plot. The defendant contended that she has been in continuous possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of the portion of the plot.

6. The defendant opposed the suit. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot. According to the defendant, the alleged sale deed was a sham and bogus. The sale deed was not executed by her husband. On the date of the alleged execution of the sale deed, her husband was admitted in the General Hospital, Amravati. In short, the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit plot by challenging the sale deed.

7. In support of their rival contentions, parties adduced the evidence before the Trial Court. Learned Judge of the Trial Court on analysis of the evidence recorded the finding on the principal issue against the plaintiff and ultimately dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff met with same fate. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found that claim of the plaintiff was without substance and ultimately dismissed the appeal. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on threadbare analysis of the evidence against the plaintiff. In this Second Appeal, the substantial questions, as above, have been framed.

8. I have heard Mr. C.S. Samudra, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Y.P. Kaslikar, learned Advocate for the defendant. Perused the record and proceedings.

9. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that in view of the reg