DEEPAK S GULALKARI Vs. PUNDLIKRAO C BANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs taking an exception to the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1987, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28-12-1987 passed by the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. , amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No. 405 of 1986 was set aside and the suit seeking possession, declaration, injunction and damages was dismissed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are required to be stated as under : the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the suit plot described in para 1 of the plaint which is shown by letters A, b, C, D, E in the map annexed with the plaint. The suit plot was part of the field survey No. 42/2 of mouza Rajapeth. Originally this field was owned and possessed by ruikar family of Yavatmal district. Shri ruikar drew lay out by converting agricultural land into non-agricultural for residential purpose and sold some plots including plot No. 331 to one Shankar Bajirao hingaspure by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29-7-1981 for consideration of rs. 42. 500/ -. Thereafter the suit plot was transferred to some persons and lastly plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 purchased Western half portion of the said plot No. 33 for a consideration of Rs. 30. 000/- from one Kondumal gokulchand Khemchandani by registered sale deed dated 29-4-1985. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 purchased the eastern half portion of plot No. 33 for a consideration of Rs. 30. 000/-from one Sudhirkumar Umedrai Shah by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29-4-1985. It is contended that the defendants occupied the portion of the said plot which is shown by letters D E F G shown in the map annexed with the plaint. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit plot and they have gone to the extent of taking electric connection in the kutcha house constructed on the suit plot from M. S. E. B. Defendant No. 3. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit for possession.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing their written statement and contended that Shri Ruikar was the original owner of field survey No. 47/2 and one Dewaji Chidam was the manager, who was managing that property. It is contended that the said Dewaji Chidam had permitted the defendants to construct their residential house on the disputed plot in the year 1970 and a receipt was also scribed by him in that context. It is contended that the defendants were formerly working in the field of Shri Ruikar and hence they allowed them to reside on the disputed plot. It is further contended that the possession of the defendants is peaceful, continuous and without any disturbance and as an owner thereof for more than the statutory period and, therefore, they have perfected their title to the same by adverse possession and the suit is liable to be dismissed.