GOVARDHAN P THANKARE Vs. JANARDHAN G THAKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff/appellant herein against the original defendants/respondents herein, and thereby, challenged the judgment and decree dated 21st December, 1990, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1988, whereby, the judgment dated 14th December, 1987, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 1982 was dismissed and the same order was maintained even by the First Appellate Court. therefore, this Appeal.

(2.) The present Appeal was admitted on 14th June, 1991, on the following two grounds, treated as questions of law.

(3.) Appellant had basically filed a Suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the Suit house and for recovery of the rent. The said Suit was resisted by the respondents. Evidence was led by the parties i.e. Govardhan (P.W. 1), Gulab, (P.W. 2) who are the attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed Exhibit-46. The respondents have examined four witnesses Govindrao (D.W. 1), Uttamchand (D.W. 2), Pandurang (D.W. 3) and Jagarao (D.W. 4). The learned Trial Judge, after considering the material, as well as, basic documents on the record i.e. Award "A" dated 16th February, 1963, declared that the partition took place in the year 1950 between the said Pandurang and his two brothers Govindrao and Jagarao. In the year 1955, additional partition was effected in between the appellant Govardhan, Janardhan, respondent No. 1 and deceased Vasanta in respect of the house, which was purchased vide Sale Deed dated 30th June 1952. Appellant failed to prove that the said house was not divided by metes and bounds in view of the second partition. Respondent proved that his father Govindrao purchased two blocks of Suit house from Pandurang and Jagarao allotted in partition for Rs. 1,700/- each. Respondent No. 1 proved that his father was in possession of the house since then and the appellant and respondent No. 2 had no right therein. The respondent No. 1, failed to prove that he acquired the title by adverse possession of the Suit house and, therefore, appellant's Suit was dismissed.