The validity of a registered sale deed was affirmed, establishing plaintiffs' title over the disputed property.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

8 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge-IX, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2019/ 47 of 2019 whereby judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge- 1^st, Aurangabad, in Title Suit No. 128 of 2008 has been upheld.

3. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents in the present appeal.

4. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.128 of 2008 for declaration of title and recovery of possession as also for permanent injunction and cost of the suit.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that Ramchandra Singh, Smt. Basanti Devi and Dhanbihari Singh purchased the land with an existing house jointly through registered sale deed dated 28.04.2003 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- from Asgar Sai. The details of the land is mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. The said Asgar Sai had purchased the said land with constructed house through Sada sale deed dated 10.10.1957 for valuable consideration of Rs. 99 and 12 anna from Buddhan Dom, who was recorded tenant in the Cadestral Survey. The suit property comprised of three rooms with varandah surrounded by the boundary wall measuring an area of 5 decimal and the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property in the month of September 2007 and constructed a temporary shade over the suit land. Hence, the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

6. The defendants/appellants appeared and filed their written statement and denied the claim and possession of the plaintiffs and vehemently pleaded that sale deed dated 28.04.2003 is collusive, fraudulent, inoperative and is not binding upon the defendants/appellants. It is further pleaded that the suit land bearing Khata No. 176 Plot No. 1093/1687, area 5 decimals is recorded in C.S. Khatiyan as gairmajarua malik in possession of Buddhan Dom. The said Buddhan Dom orally sold the suit land to Karam Sai on 19.04.1933 for valuable consideration of Rs. 72/- only through unregistered sale deed. Karam Sai came in possession over the suit land after execution of the unregistered sale deed dated 19.04.1933. The defendants/appellants are the descendants of Late Karam Sai, who are coming in peaceful possession from the time of their father since the year 1933 and they also paid Chowkidari rent of the suit property. The defendants never dispossessed the plaintiffs and the story of dispossession is false and fictitious and the defendants are residing over the suit land from the lifetime of their father.

7. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues and after considering the pleadings and materials on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. The learned Trial Court held that the disputed property was admittedly recorded as gairmajarua malik in possession of Buddhan Dom. The defendants claimed that the suit land was purchased through unregistered sale deed in favour of Karam Sai on 19.04.1933. On the contrary, Sullu Sai (defendant no. 1), in his cross-examination, during the trial accepted that the defendants claim their right, title over the Plot No. 1055/1683 in the proceeding under Section 144 which was initiated against the plaintiffs and defendants vide order dated 11.06.2007 passed in Case No. 658 of 2007 (Ext.-4). Therefore, it is apparent from the record that no claim was raised by the defendants for the suit land till 2007. The land in dispute was purchased by the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 28.04.2003 which was never challenged by the defendants in any suit and accordingly, the learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record, held that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their case. The right, title and interest has been proved on the basis of the documents and evidence adduced by t