SADASHIV MAHADEORAO POKLE Vs. MAHESH BABAN POKLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original defendants have filed present second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by Courts below for their eviction. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Special civil Suit No. 221 of 1983 through their father and natural guardian against present appellants for recovery of possession and for damages. They claimed possession of house property located at Baraipura, Lalganj, nagpur, on the basis of Will. The suit came to be decreed and appellants (original defendants Nos. 1 to 3) were directed to hand over the possession to plaintiffs. The appellants then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 530 of 1985 and the Court of 10th Additional District judge, Nagpur, dismissed it with costs on 19. 9. 1991. On 22. 11. 1991 the present second appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law, the first being about the explanation of suspicious circumstances shrouding the Will and second about protection of Rent Control Legislation. During the pendency of appeal, the appellants filed Civil application No. 2069 of 2003 and sought leave to urge additional substantial question of law in relation to nature of property. It is their contention that property bequeathed by nathu through disputed Will was ancestral property. The application was opposed by the respondents by filing reply on 16. 4. 2003. Thereafter on 17. 7. 2006, the appellants have filed another application raising three more questions and in view of later application, the earlier Application No. 2069 of 2003 has not been pressed.

(2.) I have heard the parties on this application on 31. 1. 2008 and Shri Samudra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that instead of recording separate reasons about the satisfaction as to whether such questions really arise or do not arise, the court may hear learned Counsel for the appellants as if such questions fall for consideration and in his reply arguments he would meet the challenge on merits and also demonstrate that such questions do not fall for consideration. However, after hearing parties, I was satisfied that the said questions also arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, parties have been heard on 1. 2. 2008 and thereafter on 6. 2. 2008.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law which need consideration in this second appeal are: