NAMDEV SHRAWAN PAWAR Vs. SUSHILABAI PANDIT DEORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendant to challenge the decree of possession against him and dismissal of his counterclaim for specific performance. The defendant claims to be in possession in lieu of the agreement dated 6 th April 1995 executed by the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. The plaintiffs claim that the document relied upon by the defendant is bogus and, therefore, had prayed for cancellation of the document and possession of the suit property. The suit is partly decreed directing the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property. The defendant's counterclaim for specific performance of the said document is refused. The trial court's decree is confirmed in the first appeal preferred by the defendant. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant.

(2.) The second appeal is admitted vide order dated 6 th June 2016 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The document which is the subject matter of the dispute is a registered document dtd. 6/4/1995, executed by Pandit Deore ("Pandit"). Pandit was plaintiff no.1's husband. Plaintiffs nos. 2 to 4 are children of deceased Pandit and plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs claim that the suit property is an ancestral property allotted to the share of Pandit in 1986, and thus, even they have a right to it. Pandit expired on 26/6/1995. The plaintiffs claim that after Pandit's death, their names were entered in the revenue record as owners of the suit property. The plaintiffs contended in the suit that Pandit was working in the railway department. He was indulging in vices of liquor and thus was under the influence of bad vices. The defendant took advantage of the same and got the agreement executed by Pandit. They contended that the suit property being the ancestral property of Pandit, the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the suit property, and thus, the agreement executed without their consent would not be binding upon them. The plaintiffs thus claimed that the agreement was a bogus document and that the defendant was in unlawful possession. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant never took any steps to get the agreement specifically performed and thus was not entitled to retain possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit, seeking cancellation of the agreement and possession.