TUKARAM SAKHARAM Vs. POPAT RAMKRISHNA DHAMALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff challenging the concurrent Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. He had filed Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 1996 before Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, for permanent as well as mandatory injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed on 21-06-1999. He challenged the said Judgment and decree by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.134 of 1999 which is later on renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.845 of 2000. The said appeal came to be dismissed by learned District Judge-2, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, on 05/12/2011. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ruchir Wani holding for Advocate Mr. A. S. Bajaj, learned Advocate Mr. A. S. Joshi and Learned Advocate Mr. H. H Padalkar for respondents No.1-A to 1-D, 2 and 3.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence properly and have given perverse finding. In fact, the plaintiff has proved his title by filing certified copy of his sale deed which he had obtained from Sub-Registrar 's office. He had also filed the mutation entry on the basis of which his name came to be entered to the revenue records. The 7/12 extract was also filed, yet both the Courts have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title of his vendor and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved his title. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also produced evidence in the form of witness who was present at the time of purchase transaction. He had got the land measured through Taluka Inspector of Land Records and thereupon it was shown that there is a construction made in the suit land, which is stated to be made by the defendants. When the said construction has been made on the open plot belonging to the plaintiff, mandatory injunction ought to have been granted. Both the Courts ought to have held that the plaintiff has proved that the encroachment has been committed by the defendants. When evidence has not been properly appreciated and it has resulted into perversity, substantial questions of law are arising in this case.