GAJANAN GYANUJI ZAMRE Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, KODALI ZAMRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.08.2006 in Reg. C. S. No.120/2006 dismissing the suit filed by appellant and confirmed in Reg C.A.No.78/2006 on 09.09.2009 passed by District Judge1, Washim, the present second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

(2.) This Court, at the time of admission on 13.04.2010, framed following substantial questions of law:

(3.) In support of the appeal, Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is perversity on the part of the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the appellantplaintiff by holding that the appellantplaintiff did not prove the title to the suit property. According to him, there is ample evidence on record to the contrary and, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below are perverse and thus no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. He further argued that it is an admitted position that the mutation entry is in favour of the appellant, vide report Exh.82 and payment of taxes for the suit property to the Gram Panchayat were accepted by the Gram Panchayat and other relevant oral and documentary evidence clearly indicate that at least the appellant did have possessory title. He, then argued that it was not shown by the Gram Panchayat as to whether the Gram Panchayat had title or better title than the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to injunction against the Gram Panchayat on the basis of settled position about possessory title since no other person has better title than the appellant. He, then argued that the Gram Panchayat did not prove or establish that the suit property was owned by Gram Panchayat or that it vested in him and, therefore, there was no reason for the courts below to dismiss the suit filed by the appellantplaintiff.