SANMITRA SHASKIYA KARMACHARI Vs. VITTHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by Appellant-original plaintiff, challenging concurrent judgments and decrees. Present appellant-plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.397/1985 before Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambejogai, District Beed, for declaration and perpetual injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed on 15/9/1994. Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/1994 was dismissed by learned District Judge-3, Ambejogai, District Beed on 9/8/2012. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff is a registered society, which had purchased 1 acre of land from defendant No.1, which was part of Survey No.367 situated at Ambejogai. Sale-deed was executed on 24/3/1970 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000.00. Proper procedure was adopted by the plaintiff-society to purchase the land. In fact, after purchasing the land, the plaintiff had made an application to Talathi and got its name mutated to the suit land. Thereafter, it has also made an application to District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Beed for getting the land measured. The basic purpose, for which the land was purchased, was to divide it into small pieces of plots and to prepare layout plan for development. Thereafter, even the layout plan was sanctioned by Town Planning authority of Ambejogai on 26/10/1971. The plaintiff is not disputing that another society viz. Bahar society, had purchased 4 acres of land on 11/2/1969 from another person by name Mr.Padalkar, who was declared a tenant in respect of 4 acres of land. Now, the dispute is towards the northern boundary. There is compromise between defendant No.1 and said Bahar society and the land is given to Bahar society. When defendant No.1 himself had entered into the sale-deed with the plaintiff, he cannot now challenge ownership of the plaintiff over said 1 acre of land, which he had sold to the plaintiff. However, the defendants challenged the plaintiff's possession as well as ownership on 1.8.1985 and, therefore, the suit was filed. The learned Trial Judge has held that the plaintiff has proved the title in respect of 1 acre of land, however, wrongly held that the plaintiff is not in lawful possession. It was then held that the land shown and described in the plaint map is not identical with the piece of land purchased by the plaintiff. In spite of this, the suit came to be dismissed. The first Appellate Court wrongly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the location of the suit property. In fact, if there was dispute regarding location of the property, it could have been brought on record, by way of Court Commissioner, as to what is the exact location. Without proper application of mind, the first Appellate Court has rejected the claim of the plaintiff and simply concurred with the findings given by the Trial Judge and, therefore, substantial questions of law are arising in this case.