SHRI JOSEPH ISHARAT Vs. MRS. ROZY NISHIKANT GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal challenges a judgment and order passed by the District Court at Pune in Civil Appeal No. 10/2013. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge dismissed the civil appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in the Respondent's suit directing the Appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Respondent and permanently restraining the Appellant from preventing the Respondent from entering the suit property and ordering an inquiry as to mesne profits.

(2.) In 1965, the Appellant (original Defendant) married a widow, who had three children from her first marriage, including the Respondent (original Plaintiff). The Plaintiff was then about 3 to 4 years old. It is the case of the Defendant that he brought up all three children, including the Plaintiff, educated them and settled them in life as his own children. The Plaintiff was trained as a nurse and worked in Delhi and thereafter, in Saudi Arabia. She was married on 24 August 1988 with one Deepak Ghoderao, but that marriage turned out to be a bigamous marriage of the said Ghoderao and as such null and void. After a protracted litigation before a civil court as well as church authorities at Pune and Mumbai, the marriage was declared as null and void by the church authorities. It is the case of the Defendant that he purchased a property at Pimple Gurav (Dapodi) at Pune for himself with his own money but in the name of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that this property was sold by the Defendant sometime in 1996 and sum of Rs. 1,10,000/was received by the Defendant. It is submitted that in 1992, another piece of land, namely, the suit property, was purchased by the Defendant with his own money in the name of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the documents of title were always remained with the Defendant; taxes in respect of the suit property were throughout paid by the Defendant; and the possession of the suit property always remained with the Defendant, who had been exercising all rights of ownership in respect of thereof. It is submitted that on 10 November 1995, in view of the Plaintiff's proposed marriage on 17 November 1995, the Plaintiff executed a memorandum of understanding with the Defendant acknowledging that the entire consideration of the suit property was paid by the Defendant and that he had the exclusive right to use and occupy the suit property. By this writing, the Plaintiff undertook not to raise any objection, complaint or impediment in respect of the Defendant's right over the suit property. It is submitted that the Plaintiff also executed a power of attorney after her marriage in favour of the Defendant, giving him the sole power to sell or dispose of both properties standing in her name, including the suit property. It is submitted that after the Plaintiff's return from Saudi Arabia, she raised a dispute about the suit property and claimed ownership thereof. After filing of a police complaint in that behalf, the Plaintiff filed the present suit claiming possession of the suit property and perpetual injunction against the Defendant in respect thereof. The trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit by ordering delivery of possession and perpetual injunction against the Defendant. This order was confirmed in appeal by the District Court at Pune. Being aggrieved, the Defendant has come before this court in the present second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Pungalia, learned Counsel for the Appellant, makes the following submissions in support of the appeal: