KUMAR GORAKHNATH SHINDE Vs. WIDER CHURCH MINISTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Revision Application is to a decree passed on 4.7.2012 by the learned Joint Civil Judge,Senior Division, Satara in Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2010 for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963. The Defendant is directed to vacate the 'Norheim Bungalow' standing on C.T.S. No.67 Mahabaleshwar Taluka Mahabaleshwar District Satara (Hereinafter referred to as the "Suit property") and to hand over the vacant physical possession to the Plaintiff- trust within a period of 90 days from the date of the order. Hence, the Original Defendant is before this Court and the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. The parties shall hereinafter be referred according to their status as plaintiffs and the defendant.

(2.) The Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2010 for restoration of possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with an averment that the Suit property is owned by Plaintiff No.1 viz " the Wider Church Ministries" which is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act bearing PTR No.E-922 (B). It is the averment in the Plaint that till 12.2.2010, the Plaintiff was in physical occupation and possession of the Suit property. However, on 13.2.2010 the Defendant along with some persons unlawfully encroached upon the suit property by breaking open the lock and causing theft of valuable articles lying in the bungalow. The Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the police station in respect of this incident on 13.2.2010. It is the further averments in the Plaint that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to possession over the Suit property and hence a decree for restoration of possession of the suit property is claimed.

(3.) In response to the suit summons, the Defendant raised a defence that it is the "Marathi Mission and Wider Church Ministries," the another public trust bearing PTR No.F 287 (Mumbai) which is the owner of the Suit property and it has entered into an Agreement of Leave and Licence dated 6.1.2010 with the Defendant. It is the stand taken that the Defendant is in lawful possession of suit property from the true owner, pursuant to the said Agreement. The Defendant raised a defence that the Plaintiffs are neither owners of the Suit property nor were in possession of it at any point of time and hence a suit for restoration of possession by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable.