A mortgagee can seek recovery of possession from a gratuitous licensee without proving ownership, and the inquiry into title is less stringent in such cases.

JUDGMENT :-

1) Appellants call in question legality of the common Judgment and Order dated 13 April 2022 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge - 01 Satara in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 384 of 2012 and 385 of 2012. The First Appellate Court has allowed both Appeals and has set aside the common Judgment and Decree dated 29 June 2012 passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 228 of 1994 and 273 of 1995. The First Appellate Court has declared that possession of the Appellants over the suit property is unlawful and it has directed the Appellants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Respondents. Further direction is issued for enquiry into mense profit as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2) Since cross suits were filed by the contesting parties, Ramesh Anandrao Shirke is referred to as Plaintiff (whose heirs are Appellants in these Appeals) and Kashinath Anna Jaigude is referred to as the Defendant (whose heirs are Respondents in these Appeals).

3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the property bearing City Survey No. 2463 admeasuring 275.9 sq. mtrs. along with the constructed house thereon at Siddhantwadi Wai, Tal. Wai, District Satara (suit property) was originally owned by Babaji Dattatraya Devkule. It is Plaintiff’s case that Grandmother Radhabai Bhiku More was a tenant of Babaji Dattatraya Devkule on the monthly tenancy of Rs. 10. Radhabai had a daughter named Shantabai and Plaintiff - Ramesh Anandrao Shirke is the son of Shantabai. This is how Plaintiff claims tenancy in respect of the suit property, which includes a house constructed thereon.

4) It is Plaintiff's case that while he was repairing the house on 1 July 1994, the Defendant - Kashinath Anna Jaigude obstructed claiming ownership in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff accordingly filed Regular Civil Suit No. 228 of 1994 seeking injunction against Defendant from obstructing Plaintiff's possession over the suit property. During the pendency of the said suit, Plaintiff filed two more suits bearing Nos. 97 of 1995 and 343 of 1999 seeking permission of the Trial Court to carry out repairs in the house situated on the suit property. Defendant filed his own suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 273 of 1995 seeking recovery of the possession of the suit property including the constructed house thereon. Defendant's claim of ownership over the suit property stems out of Sale deed executed on 29 December 1993 in his favour by one Mr. Gangadhar Mahadev Khage. It is Defendant's case that the original owner by Babaji had executed a mortgage on 4 August 1971 in favour of Piraji Bin Bhivaji Naik @ Khage @ Patharvat. After Piraji's death, one Ramchandra claimed to be the beneficiary of the mortgage deed and on his death, the rights were transferred in the name of his wife Chandrabhaga. That after Chandrabhaga's death, the mortgage rights were transferred in the name of Gangadhar Mahadev Khage, who in turn sold the property to the Defendant. This is how the Defendant claims ownership in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff contested Defendant's claim of ownership before the Trial Court.

5) By common Judgment and Order dated 29 June 2012, the Trial Court decided all four suits. It held that Plaintiff could not prove the tenancy rights in respect of the suit property. Regular Civil Suit Nos. 97 of 1995 and 343 of 1999 seeking repairs to the suit house were dismissed holding that the suit house was beyond repairs. The Trial Court however held that Plaintiff was in settled possession of the suit property and therefore granted injunction in Plaintiff's favour by decreeing Regular Civil Suit No. 228 of 1994 injuncting Defendant from obstructing Plaintiff's possession over suit property. The Trial Court did not accept the Defendant's claim of ownership and therefore rejected Regular Civil Suit No. 273 of 1995 filed by Defendant - Kashinath Anna Jaigude.

6) Defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 384 o