SATYANANRAYAN SURAJMAL AGROYA Vs. BASHIR SK AHMED TAAKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 15, 1964 the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur to recover possession of 1 acre, 3 gunthas assessed at Rs. 1.50 forming a part of Survey No. 224 being the western portion of Survey No. 224 on the strength of his title as being the owner of Survey No. 224. There was no dispute that the plaintiff was owner of Survey No. 224. The dispute was as to whether the suit land 1 acre, 3 gunthas formed a part of Survey No. 224. According to defendant No. 1, this is a part of Survey No. 225 of which they were in possession.

(2.) The parties led oral and documentary evidence and the learned Joint Civil Judge by his judgment dated December 11, 1965 passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as he came to the conclusion that the land in possession of the plaintiff was less than 11 acres 9 gunthas by 1 acre, 8 gunthas. The said finding was set-aside in an appeal filed by the defendants before the learned Assistant Judge, Osmanabad at Latur on February 3, 1967 as the learned Assistant Judge found that the plaintiff had not led satisfactory evidence about the measurements of Survey Nos. 224 and 225. He therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge are challenged in the above second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Pendse, the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that there was no dispute about the title of the plaintiff to Survey No. 224 any more and all the contentions raised by the defendants were overruled, and the learned Assistant Judge erred in law in ignoring the evidence on record and in holding merely because the measurement Inspector had not been examined by the plaintiff that the plaintiff filed to prove his title to the suit 1 acre, 3 gunthas. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge should be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court should be restored.