SIDHARTH ASHRAM SCHOOL Vs. RUKHMINIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 827 of 1998 and also judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 379 of 2000. The suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad and the appeal is decided by learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is an educational institution and the suit was filed in respect of land Survey No. 97 (New Gat No. 397) admeasuring 7 Acres 9 Gunthas situated at village Chowka, Taluka and District Aurangabad. It is the case of the plaintiff that it purchased the suit property from the owner Smt. Radhabai Gunjal in the year 1965 and since then it is in possession of the property. It is contended that it has spent huge amount for construction of school building and its building is present on the property for about 30 years. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant Smt. Rukhminibai has no right or title in respect of the suit property but by filing proceeding under the Succession Act she obtained letter of administration in respect of the suit property and on that basis she is interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the suit property it is contended that the said certificate is not binding on plaintiff. It is contended that the property was sold by owner Radhabai but she could not execute the sale deed during her life time it is contended that Radhabai had sworn affidavit in favour of plaintiff on 28th July, 1965 and the record also shows that the property was sold by her to the plaintiff and the possession was given to plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant has denied everything about the transfer of the property by Radhabai in favour of plaintiff and also about the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is contended that some false record is created and there was no transfer as such under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that by joining hands with Village Talathi and other authorities plaintiff has created some record but plaintiff is a trespasser on some portion. It is contended that the plaintiff has taken conflicting defences and that is sufficient to show that the plaintiff has no right in respect of the suit property.