HARISH KASHINATH MANE Vs. HARIBHAU ADKOJI SAPATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

(2.) This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Gadchiroli in regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2009 thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27-2-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Armori in regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002. The respondent was the owner of the land bearing gat No. 1217 admeasuring 0.78 H.R. at Armori, district Gadchiroli, which was purchased by him from one Smt. Barubai Adkuji Satpute on 12-9-1989. It is the contention of the respondent that an agreement for sale was entered into between the respondent and the appellant along with one Narayan and Ranjana, whereby the entire property was agreed to be purchased admeasuring 0.78 H. R. on 16-9-1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-of which Rs. 55,000/- were paid as an earnest money. The said transaction could not be completed as the parties refused to perform their respective parts of their contract. It is further the case of the respondent that the appellant is an adjacent owner and occupier of certain area i.e. 0.16 H. R. unauthorisedly. The respondent got the land converted to non-agricultural use and the layout plan was approved by the revenue officers after paying the visit to the said property which was in possession of the respondent. Excluding the said plots, the permission was accorded for the rest of the property. The respondent demanded possession of the said area and in view of the refusal, the suit was filed by the respondent seeking restoration of possession of the said area of the land.

(3.) The appellant filed his written statement and denied the contentions of the respondent. It is his contention that at the time of execution of agreement of sale, the appellant was put in possession of the suit property. It is further his contention that he was ready to perform his part of the contract but the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract. He further claimed that the