BHAGIRATH Vs. RAMPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by original Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No.151 of 1988 decided on 12.10.1990, whereby he allowed the said appeal and passed decree against present appellant Bhagirath (original defendant No.1) to deliver possession of the suit property to Respondent Nos.1 to 11 (original plaintiffs and legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs) on or before 13.11.1990 and also for holding enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the said judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed in R.C.S. No.227 of 1984 decided on 30.4.1988.

(2.) Briefly stated, it is the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 (Original Plaintiffs and legal heirs of deceased Plaintiffs) that the old house bearing No. 1669 (present house No.2056) situated at Shani Mandir Road, Beed, bearing CTS sheet No.76 and Chalta No.38 fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, was purchased by original Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 Papalal (present Respondent No.12) by a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1963 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/= from original owners, late Hiralal Bhagwandas and his sons. Plaintiffs were in joint possession of the same with Respondent No.12 Papalal. Supervision and management of the suit house was being looked after by Respondent No.12 Papalal and he used to let out the suit house on rent and collect the rent on behalf of himself and plaintiffs. Respondent No.12 used to pay municipal taxes on behalf of holders of the property, but only his name was recorded in the municipal record. However, he had no right other than of supervision and management of the suit property. In 1974, without consent of Plaintiffs, Respondent No. 12 Papalal inducted present appellant in some portion of the suit house. Appellant and Respondent No.12 attempted to get their names entered into the record of City Survey record, but the concerned authorities rejected the said move and the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the record of City Survey. Whatever transaction that had taken place between Respondent No.12 Papalal and the present appellant is not binding on the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for possession and mesne profit.

(3.) Present appellantoriginal defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement at Exhibit 34. It was his contention that since 1964 onwards, Respondent No.12 Papalal was dealing with property as if he was the exclusive owner and possessor thereof. The City Survey authorities had no jurisdiction to decide title of the parties to the suit property. The appellant purchased the property for value without notice. Respondent No.12 Papalal had executed sale deed in favour of the appellant in the year 1974. At that time, Respondent No.12 was in need of money for improvement of his land at village LoniShahajanpur and, therefore, he approached the appellant for hand loan. Respondent No.12 represented that he wanted to construct a well in his land and also purchase bullocks. Respondent No.12 Papalal told the appellant that he would execute a conditional sale by way of security for loan and the amount would be repaid. He would not claim any rent in respect of portion of the suit house that was given possession of the present appellant. Respondent No.12 Papalal further represented to the appellant that he was the exclusive owner of the property as it had fallen to his share. Relying upon the word of Respondent No.12 Papalal and after verifying the municipal record, the appellant agreed to pay Rs.15,000/= to Respondent No. 12 as loan and,in turn,Respondent No.12 agreed to execute a registered sale deed with condition of reconveyance of the suit property on repayment of consideration of Rs.15,000/= within a period of three years. In case the amount was not repaid as agreed, the sale transaction was to be treated as out and out sale. It is further stated in paragraph 20 of the Written Statement that after expiry of period of three years on 17.2.1977, the appellant approached Respondent No.12 Papalal on 34 occasions and asked him to repay the amount and get the title reconveyed. However, Respondent No.12 expressed inability to repay the amount and requested the appellant to treat the transaction as out and out sale. It is thereafter that the name of the appellant was entered in the municipal record as owner and the property was given separate No. as 2056/1. It is further stated that from 196970, the appellant had taken suit property for business on rent at Rs.50/=, per month, but after sale on 18.2.1974 of half portion of suit house, he was paying rent at Rs.30/= per month in respect of unsold portion of the suit house. He has also constructed a room of tins. On the basis of these pleadings, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit.