HARISCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA DHAKATE Vs. SANTOSH RAMCHANDRA PALTHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of common judgments delivered by the trial Court in two suits and thereafter by lower Appellate Court in two appeals concurrently against the appellant before this Court. Regular Civil Suit No. 1408 of 1983 was filed by present appellant for specific performance of agreement against present respondents while Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1983 was filed by present respondent No.1 against the appellant for recovery of possession on the basis of title. Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, vide judgment dated 1.11.1985 dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 1408 of 1983 and decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1985. The present appellant then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987 and 439 of 1987 challenging this common judgment. Regular Civil Appeal No. 439 of 1987 challenged decree granted in Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1983 while Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987 challenged dismissal of his suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 1408 of 1983. By common judgment dated 30.12.1993, 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, dismissed both these appeals. The appellant thereafter has filed Second Appeal No. 33 of 1994 against adjudication in Regular Civil Appeal No. 439 of 1987 and Second Appeal No. 68 of 1994 against adjudication in Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987. Second Appeals have been admitted on 27.1.1994 on identical grounds i.e. by mentioning that grounds No. 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 in memo of appeals are substantial questions of law. No specific question as such has been formulated by this Court at this juncture.

(2.) The suit property and its description is not in dispute between parties. The contention of present appellant was that there was an agreement dated 21.3.1978 (Exh. 40) executed in his favour by respondent Santosh whereby a plot of land to be allotted to him by Nagpur Improvement Trust on lease deed was agreed to be sold by Santosh to present appellant after such lease deed. He also contended that various payments were made by him from time to time and he invested total amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- upon construction of a house on said property as he was placed in possession by the respondent. The suit was opposed by present Respondent Santosh, who denied any such agreement and further contended that the appellant was his licensee only. He also denied alleged payments made by the appellant to him or to Nagpur Improvement Trust and contended that all payments were made by him. In turn, by filing separate suit as mentioned above, he also sought possession on the basis of lease deed executed in his favour by Nagpur Improvement Trust. The trial Court has found that though agreement Exh. 40 was having signature of Santosh, Santosh never entered into any agreement for sale with present appellant and brother of Santosh by name Vitthal colluded with present appellant and helped him to prepare a false case of agreement between appellant and present respondent. In view of these findings, the trial Court dismissed suit for specific performance and decreed the suit of respondent Santosh. The appellate Court has maintained these findings.

(3.) In this background, I have heard Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel for the appellant in both matters and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 Santosh.