DEORAO Vs. DR. PUNJABRAO KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A. Sambre, learned Advocate for the Respondent.

(2.) The present Appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 19/01/2005 passed by the 6th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 224/2000 & 106/2000 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. Since the Second Appeal No. 95/2005 is treated as the lead Appeal, the facts and contentions in the said Appeal are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in both the Appeals.

(3.) It is the contention of the Appellants that without there being any evidence and proof of title, the decree dtd. 19/01/2005 came to be passed and was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It appears that this Court vide order dtd. 06/03/2007 dismissed the Second Appeal as there was no substantial question of law involved in the Appeal. The said order came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 8466/2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the observation of this Court. The High Court confirmed the order passed by both the Lower Courts basically on the ground that the Appellants have not claimed tenancy and on this position, held that since the Appellants had not pleaded that they were the Tenants in the Suit Property, there was no question of referring the matter for decision to the Tenancy Court and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership of the Respondent - Krishi Vidyapeeth over the Suit Property. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that this Court erred in basing its judgment on the observation that the Appellants had not pleaded the tenancy. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that at several places in the Plaint, the Plaintiff claimed that the predecessor of the Plaintiff was tenant of the Government though it is not pleaded that they were the tenants of the Respondent - Krishi Vidyapeeth but that is not determinative of any issue in this case. The fact remains that they have clearly pleaded that they were the Tenants of the State in the Suit and they had even pleaded that the Respondent - Krishi Vidyapeeth had no right or title in the said land. It is further observed that "assuming that the Appellants did not have any right or title in respect of the aforesaid land, it was necessary for the High Court to determine if the Respondent - Krishi Vidyapeeth had any right or title in the said land."? In such circumstances, the judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal Nos. 95/2005 and 97/2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh on all the points including certain substantial questions of law which may be framed at the instance of either of the party. It appears that vide order dtd. 09/12/2020, this Court, upon agreement of both the Counsel, framed the following substantial question of law, which reads as under:-