VITHAL SAIDU LOKHANDE Vs. RAMA MAHADEV GUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Civil Suit No. 370 of 1977 was decreed by the trial Court for arrears of rent and for possession of some portion of the house described in para 1 of the plaint from the defendant. The defendant is directed to handover vacant possession of the portion of the house described in column 'A' of the operative part of the order. The counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1987 filed by the defendant has been allowed on 23rd August, 1991 and a decree passed by the trial court has been set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed. The counter claim of the defendant for reconveyance of the property has also been dismissed. This second appeal is, therefore, preferred by the original plaintiff.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length, this court had passed an order on 13th of June, 2014 which is reproduced below:

(3.) Coming to the substantial question of law at serial No. 1 above, the agreement to sale dated 7/6/1971 at Exhibit- 120 and the sale deed executed pursuant thereto on 5/5/1972 at Exhibit-121, are the documents which are registered and held to have been proved by both the Courts below. There is no dispute raised in this second appeal, by any of the parties, in respect of it. Normally, the plaintiff, therefore, would be entitled to a decree, as has been passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has, however, reversed the said decree passed holding that the transaction evidenced by the document at Exhibits 120 and 121, was a loan transaction and it was never intended to be acted upon between the parties. It is on this ground the appellate Court has held that the transaction evidenced by the documents at Exhibit 120 and 121, cannot be enforced and hence, plaintiff is held not entitled to a decree for possession.