RAMBHAU MAHADEO BALI Vs. DHARMA SHIMYA UMATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of fact. The respondent No.1 in this case is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed R.C.S.No.112 of 1984 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibag. The said suit was filed for a declaration of the suit property and also for grant of injunction restraining the original defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The appellant in this case is the original defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of an irrigated land at Wadi being survey No.171/1 H.No.1 adjacent to the puit property i.e. survey No.173/44-B. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has no proper approach road to go to his plot of land bearing survey No.171/1 H.No.1 and, therefore, he purchased the suit land belonging to one Vithal Pandurang Ambukar by a registered sale deed on February 15, 1954 for a consideration of Rs.120/-. After the said purchase the plaintiff also demolished the hut in the said land and constructed one approach road to his land bearing survay No.171/1 H.No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the said registered sale deed dated February 15, 1954 the plaintiff was in possession of the said suit land till the date of the filing of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff further contended that though he purchased the aforesaid land from Vithal Pandurang Ambukar in the year 1954 still he failed to enter his name in the record of rights. THE said Vithal Pandurang Ambukar died some where in 1956-57 leaving behind his son Vishwanatha defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that Vishwanath took advantage of the fact that the plaintiff has not entered his name in the record of rights and sold the land to defendant No.1 on January 4, 1984. After the said alleged sale by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, the present appellant, defendant No.1 started obstructing the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration and injunction. THE plaintiff contended that since the father of defendant No.2 had already sold the suit land to the plaintiff in the year 1954, defendant No.2 had no right title or interest in the suit land and, therefore, he could not have passed any title whatsoever in favour of defendant No.1. THE plaintiff has therefore sought for a declaration and injunction.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the suit land originally belonged to Vithal Pandurang Ambukar, the father of defendant No.2. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed dated February 15, 1954 whereby the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the owner Vithal Pandurang Ambukar. However, it appears that through inadvertance the plaintiff failed to enter his name in the record of right as the purchaser of the suit land. But, in any case that will not affect the right accrued by virtue of a registered purchase or transfer made by Vithal Pandurang Ambukar in favour of the plaintiff as far as the suit land is concerned.