Claiming adverse possession requires clear evidence and proof of hostile possession, which was not established by the defendants.

ORDER :

1.By the present second appeal the appellants are challenging the Judgment passed on 10/04/2023, by the learned District Judge - 3, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.117 of 2020, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 29/03/2018, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri in Regular Civil Suit No.802 of 2013, declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property and directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the decree, and that the defendants are restrained perpetually from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over suit property and for mesne profits.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal can be summarized as under :-

The plaintiff filed suit for restoration of possession and perpetual injunction as regards the open plot property having dimension of 180.6 square meter, situated at village Vambori. It is contended by the plaintiff that the suit property is a open premises owned by the plaintiff. On 05/05/2012 the plaintiff purchased the suit property by the registered sale deed from vendor Tukaram Jagannath Dudhade for consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. Accordingly, his name is mutated in the Gram Panchayat record and City Survey Record. The plaintiff became lawful owner and possessor of the suit property. The defendants have no concern with the suit property. One Pandu Tukaram Patare was the original owner of the suit property. Thereafter, Tukaram Jagannath Dudhade purchased the same from the legal representatives of Pandu Patare vide registered sale deed on 19/08/2004, and accordingly name of Tukaram was entered in the Gram Panchayat and City Survey record. That on 05/05/2012 the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Tukaram by registered sale deed.

3. The defendants are having their own common property adjoining to the North of the suit property. It is the case of plaintiff that on 26/11/2012 when the plaintiff has been at the suit property, the defendants temporarily had erected shed with tin-sheets and encroached on the suit property. He also found that the defendants have initiated use of water and electricity connection for the utility of suit property. The defendants wrongly encroached upon the suit property by taking undue advantage of his out station residence. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for removal of encroachment and possession.

4. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement and challenged the maintainability of the suit for non- joinder of necessary parties. They contend that their grandfather Rabhaji Patare used to reside in the suit property up to his death in the year 1949. After his demise, his son Shankar used to reside with defendant No.1 being their ancestral property. The defendant No.1 obtained electric connection therein for last 20 years and obtained water-tap connection for last 10 years. They used to pay the property cess and water charges to Gram Panchayat, Vambori. The plaintiff purchased the suit property on the basis of bogus sale deed by forging city survey record.

5. The defendant contend that MSEB also continued their electricity connection despite plaintiff’s endeavor to disconnect it. It is contended that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit property and they prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs.

6. On examination of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and answered as under : -