SIDDHIVINAYAK AUDYOGIK VASAHAT MARYADIT Vs. MURLIDHAR VEDU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this second appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original plaintiff) has impugned the order and judgment dated 1st Aug. 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Niphad, Nashik dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 2012 filed by the appellant. The appellant had impugned the judgment and decree dated 15th Sept. 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, Nashik in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2002 filed by the appellant inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreements dated 15th Aug. 1990 and 15th Nov. 1999 in respect of the suit property i.e. land bearing Gat No.2509 situated at village Ozar, Tal.Naiphad, Dist.Nashik (Hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property). The parties are described in later part of the judgment as they were described in the proceedings before the trial Court.

(2.) Both the parties have agreed that the facts in both the matters are identical. I am summarizing the facts in Second Appeal No.29 of 2016.

(3.) It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the land bearing Gat Nos.2610, 2612 and 2614 which were adjoining to the suit property. The suit property is owned by the defendant No. 1 along with other co-owners. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 15th Aug. 1990 for consideration of Rs.5,04,000.00 and entered into a writing with the plaintiff by accepting earnest amount of Rs.5,000.00. According the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 had executed an agreement in favour of the Chief Promoter of Siddhi Vinayak Industrial Estate. It was the case of the plaintiff that the names of the deceased mother of the defendant no.1 and his absconding brother by name Waman were entered in 7/12 extract. The defendant no.1 agreed to get their names removed from the record of the rights and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that since the suit land was 'Inam' land, as per the provisions of Restoration of Lands to Tribal Act, a permission was required from the Government before selling such Inam land. The defendant no.1 was admittedly a tribal.