LAXMAN BISAN UKE Vs. ASHOK ISHWAR SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are defendants in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondentsplaintiffs in respect of plot no.66 admeasuring 1750 sq. ft. situated in mouza Manewada, P.H. No.39, Kh. No.58, in Dhobi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society at Nagpur. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they had purchased the suit plot by registered sale deed dated 1.1.1990 from Shrawanji Dhepe and that they have been in possession of the same since the date of the execution of the said sale deed. It is their case that they constructed a compound wall around the suit plot in the month of April, 2001.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis that the defendants in collusion with each other claiming to be the members of Bhimalepan Deoshan Samiti, a body that was not registered either under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or the Societies Registration Act, 1860, sought to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and that, therefore, an injunction was required to be issued against them. The defendants (appellants herein) appeared in the suit and claimed that the suit plot was the site where a deity by the name of Bhiwasan also called Bhimalpen was being worshipped for long period of time and originally Kh.No.58 belonged to Gond Raja. It was claimed that there were documents to show that such worship of deity had been continuing for about 100 to 150 years and that the property had come into the hands of the respondents-plaintiffs on the basis of documents allegedly created in collusion with the priest. The plaintiffs produced oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim in the form of registered sale deed dated 1.1.1990 (Exh.45) executed in their favour as also sale deed of the year 1986 (Exh.45) executed in favour of their vendor. They also placed on record receipts issued by the aforesaid society, wherein the suit plot was located, showing their membership and further documents showing that they had indeed constructed the wall and iron gate surrounding the suit plot. PW1 being the elder brother of the plaintiffs appeared as a witness on their behalf and PW2 was one of the witnesses to the aforesaid sale deed dated 1.1.1990 (Exh.44).

(3.) Defendants examined defendant no.1 on their behalf as also other witnesses to support their case. They also relied upon an extract of a report of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (Exh.68), which according to them demonstrated that the suit plot indeed was the site where deity as stated above was located and that the said deity was being worshipped for a long period of time. There were other documents also placed on record on behalf of the defendants to claim that the theory of possession of the plaintiffs was not correct.