SARITA GOPALKUMAR CHAND Vs. MADGU SITARAM RAMTEKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal at the instance of original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 575 / 2006 whereby the suit for ejectment and vacant possession filed by her, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts briefly are : Suit plot No.253 in CRS III Scheme NIT Middle Precinct, Ward No.24, District Nagpur, admeasuring 1500 sq.ft. was allotted on renewable leasehold rights to Tulsabai Mahagu Khobragade and Dattatraya Mahagu Khobgrade, on 24.5.1996 by Nagpur Improvement Trust. Mahagu expired on 13.3.1975 leaving his legal heirs wife Tulsabai and son Dattatraya. Tulsabai expired on 12.7.1998 leaving behind her sole heir Dattatraya Mahagu Khobragade to inherit all the rights in suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/on 17.9.1998 after Dattatraya obtained consent from Nagpur Improvement Trust ( in short " NIT") for transfer in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) During life time of Mahagu, he had permitted Sitaram Khobragade to use and occupy temporary structure 3000 st.ft. without any occupation charges. In 1997, Regular Civil Suit No. 902 / 1997 was filed by Mahagu and two others vs. Dattatraya and two others which was dismissed with cost. The dismissal was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No. 482 of 1998 which is pending before the District Court, Nagpur. Said Sitaram Khobragade or his legal heirs i.e. defendants have no right/share in suit property. They failed to vacate despite notice served on 22.4.2006. According to defendants, sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void as hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense'. The trial Court found favour with the defendant and recorded finding that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was hit by doctrine of 'lis pendense' while disbelieving the plaintiff's case, dismissed the suit.