SOPAN BHAURAO DAUND Vs. RANJANA NANASAHEB WALUNJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) The respondent had filed suit for redemption and for possession of the land mortgaged with the present appellant - defendant No. 1. It is the case that the suit land of 1H 9R out of land Gat No. 126 was mortgaged with the defendant No. 1 by executing conditional sale for an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00. However, in spite of redemption of the loan amount the defendant did not execute reconveyance deed and therefore, the suit was filed. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit of recording the evidence of the parties. The said decree and order came to be challenged by the present appellant -defendant No. 1 in appeal. The learned District Judge -2, Shrirampur, however, rejected the appeal by confirming the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appellants are therefore before this Court.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellants restricted his submission only to the point that after taking the land in possession by way of mortgage the appellants have spent certain amount on improvement of the land. They dug a well and installed machinery for siphoning of water. He submits that, both the learned Courts below have not considered this fact. There is ample evidence on record by way of receipts and oral evidence of the witnesses who stated that, the appellants have spent certain amount on developing the land while digging the well. Thus, it is submitted that, the learned Appellate Court has committed error of law by not considering this aspect and not granting the amount spent by the appellants towards improvement of the land. He relies upon the judgment in the case of Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate (Deceased) through legal representatives Vs. Nana Dinkar Yadav (Tanpura) and another reported in (2021) 9 SCC 45. He relies upon Sec. 63 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that, though there was evidence in the form of receipt about the amounts spent by them on the improvement, the same is not believed by both the learned Courts below. Non consideration of this evidence gives rise to substantial question of law.