MADANLAL VIRBHANJI MADAN Vs. RAMRAO MAHADEORAO GOMASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 28.11.2003 passed by 3rd Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Wardha in Reg. C. A. No. 149/1996, decreeing the civil suit filed by respondent/plaintiffRamrao by reversing the judgment decree dated 19.09.1996 passed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Wardha, in Reg. C. S. No. 406/1988, the present second appeal was filed by the appellants/defendant.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiffRamrao filed a suit for possession of the suit premises denominating it as a tenanted premises leased out by him to the appellants/defendant. The case was that he and his brother Amrutrao had purchased the entire suit house by registered sale deed dated 03.12.1952. There was a family partition amongst the two brothers on 05.01.1962 and the area of the suit house came to his share. Accordingly, it was mutated and taxes were being paid to the Gram Panchayat, Anji (Mothi), after dividing the house into two parts. The suit block was originally let out to Anji Cooperative Society for running a grain shop. The society vacated the same on 30.04.1972 and, therefore, the premises was let out from 01.10.1972 to the appellants/defendant by Bhade Chitti dated 17.09.1972. From March1981, the rent was increased to Rs.100/ from Rs.50/ p.m. and the original defendant had promised to vacate the premises by the end of March1982 as per agreement of lease dated 15.03.1981 and that the rent was paid up to 28.02.1986. The appellant/defendant, in the written statement, contended that, in fact, the suit premises were purchased by him by sale deed dated 20.07.1960 from Amrutrao, elder brother of plaintiffRamrao. The respondent/plaintiff, however, denied execution of the sale deed or execution of Power of Attorney in favour of Amrutrao for the said sale and contended that on 04.04.1988, he determined the tenancy of the original defendant and thereafter filed the suit for possession along with arrears of rent. As earlier stated, the defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff and on the contrary, by amending the pleadings exhaustively in the written statement, stated that he purchased the suit property from Ramrao through his Power of AttorneyAmrutrao. The defendant also denied the very title of the plaintiff and his brother Amrutrao, which they claimed to have acquired by sale deed dated 03.12.1952. The parties went on trial. Original defendant Virbhanfather of the appellants, was very old at the time of evidence and, therefore, his sonPower of Attorney holder, entered the witness box. He also examined witnesses while plaintiff examined himself and his witnesses. The trial Court, thereafter, framed in all 10 issues and finally dismissed the suit holding that the original defendant, in fact, was owner by virtue of the sale deed dated 02.08.1960, executed by Amrutrao as Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffRamrao. The respondent, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, filed Reg. C. A. No.149/1996 before District Judge, Wardha which was decided by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(3.) In Support Of The Appeal, Mr. S. V. Purohit, Learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions: