DHONDIBA Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.V.Ghatge, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 at length.

(2.) BY this Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ' C.P.C.'), plaintiff has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 28/12/2009 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded in Spl.C.S. No. 56/2006, as also the Judgment and decree dated 08/08/2013 passed by learned District Judge -1, Nanded in R.C.A. No. 163 of 2012. By these orders, the Courts below dismissed the Suit instituted by appellants for declaration that the sale deed dated 11/10/2005 executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of plot No. 1 -11 -148 admeasuring 16' x 75' ( for short, 'suit plot' ) is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their possession. The parties shall hereinafter required to be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) IN support of this Appeal, Mr. Gaware strenuously contended that the sale deed dated 11/10/2005 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void as defendant No. 2 was not legally competent to transfer suit plot in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 had no right, title and interest in the suit plot so as to pass on better title to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 claims right in the suit plot on the basis of alleged consent deed dated 17/09/1990. In the first place, by that consent deed, Laxman Paraji Charumbekar relinquished his right, title and interest in CTS No. 10963 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Dhondiba and defendant No. 2 Chudaman. The said instrument is not a registered instrument. He, therefore, submitted that the said document is not admissible in evidence. He submitted that the consent deed is a fraudulent document. Since defendant No. 2 did not acquire any right, title and interest by virtue of the consent deed, he could not have passed on better title in favour of defendant No. 1. He, therefore, submitted that Appeal requires consideration as it involves substantial questions of law.