MAHAVIR THEATRES CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Second Appeals challenge common judgment delivered by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 309/1984 and 334/1984 on 31.03.1992. Second Appeal No. 389/1992 has been filed against the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.309/1984, while other Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment in other Regular Civil Appeal. The present appellants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 260/1975 against the respondents for possession on the basis of title, and the said suit was decreed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 27.07.1984. Union of India and its Officers namely Income Tax Officer preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 334/1984 against that decree, while the original defendant no.4 [a private person] preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.309/1984. Both the Second Appeals have been admitted on same questions of law by mentioning that questions no.4,5,6 and 8 in memo of Second Appeal are the substantial questions.

(2.) The present appellants had contended that purchase of open plot ad-measuring 1364 sq. ft. forming part of plot no.9/1 and plot no.2 as described in plaint, was their property and it was given to one Ghasiram as licencee by their father Nathusa. Portion of plot no.9/1 belong to Nathusa, while plot no.2 was purchased in the name of the plaintiff no.3 [original appellant no.3] Mainabai. Auction of the said property by Income Tax Department to recover tax arrears from Ghasiram in favour of the present respondent no.4 did not therefore confer any title or interest on respondent no.4 Gopal. The Trial Court accepted this stand and rejected the case of respondents that there was any permanent grant by Nathusa in favour of Ghasiram. It further found that there cannot be any promissory estoppel in view of the evidence which came on record. It therefore, decreed the suit. In two appeals mentioned above, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Amravati found that there was permanent grant in favour of Ghasiram. Name of Ghasiram was mutated in municipal records as occupier and he also paid property tax to the Municipal Council. It further found that in earlier litigation Ghasiram had taken a plea of permanent grant and inspite of such plea plaitniffs had not taken any steps. It applied the principle of promissory estoppel because of silence on the part of the plaintiffs and though it found that the plaintiffs proved their title and that title could not have passed in favour of Ghasiram, as there was no registered instrument, permanent grant was held proved in favour of Ghasiram and that right of Ghasiram stood vested in original defendant no.4 Gopal, being auction purchaser.

(3.) In this background I have heard Shri G.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the appellants / plaintiffs and Advocate Shri R.K. Deshpande, for respondent no.3[ii] i.e. legal heir of original defendant no.4. No body has appeared on behalf of other legal heirs or on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.