VITTHAL AND ORS. Vs. SHRIKISAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal was admitted on 27.7.2007 on the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) Heard submissions at the bar. It appears that, by the impugned Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.489 of 1987, the suit was partly decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.166/3 to the plaintiff after the trial Court declared that the disputed way is easement of necessity and the plaintiff is entitled to use the said way. Consequently, the defendants were restrained permanently from causing obstruction and interference to the use of disputed way by the plaintiff personally or through any one on his behalf. The trial Court while deciding Regular Civil Suit No.489 of 1987 found that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land bearing Survey No.1663 under registered Sale deed dt.23.1.1981 and was in possession of the land pursuant to agreement to sell dt.25.1.1980. The trial Court was satisfied that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the suit field and that the plaintiff is entitled to easement of necessity regarding cart way of 8 ft. wide. Thus, the relief of declaration and possession was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court was questioned in Appeal u/s. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the District Court, Wardha bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1999. The first Appellate Court confirmed the finding that the plaintiff is owner of suit land bearing survey no.1663 under sale deed dt.25.1.1980 and was dispossessed by the defendants after sale deed was executed and it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to right of way of 8 ft. wide. That being so, the appeal came to be dismissed.

(3.) Against these concurrent findings of facts, this Second Appeal is preferred on the aforesaid substantial questions of law as formulated by order dt.27.7.2007 by this Court.