SUBHASHAPPA Vs. MAROTI LAXMANRAO SAWARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of civil Procedure, the appellant has preferred this appeal taking an exception to the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1990 passed by the learned district Judge, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1985 whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the appellant/plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and damages past and future mesne profits has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16-10-1984 passed by the learned 9th Joint Civil judge, Jr. Dn. Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit no. 175 of 1983.

(2.) Heard Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gilda, learned counsel for the respondent. The short question of law that arises for consideration in this case is whether the alienation made by the mother of a minor without obtaining permission of the district Judge is valid in law ; and whether the appellate Court, by ignoring the recitals of the compromise decree as well the provisions of law, has committed an error of law in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title to the suit property

(3.) It is not in dispute that plaintiff's father by name Pundlikappa was the owner of the suit property and some property and one narayan Patil had instituted Civil Suit No. 56 of 1953 against Pundlikappa which came to be decreed on 27-7-1953. In execution of that decree, the suit property came to be auctioned by the Civil Court and it was purchased by one amrut Doma Gawai. In pursuance of this auction sale, the purchaser of auction was put in possession of the property on 9-8-1956 vide ex. 17-A, the Taba Paoti. It is also not in dispute that the said property was repurchased in the name of the present plaintiff Subhashappa, who was then minor and was shown to be under guardianship of his natural mother. In this regard, Amrut Gawai executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the minor plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,300/- on 19-12-1965 (Ex. 18). It is also admitted that on behalf of the minor, his mother Parvati had executed a sale-deed dated 6-4-1964 for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in favour of one Wamanrao and it pertains to a part of the suit property.