SHRI HEMANT Vs. SHRI VINAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in these two civil revision applications is the judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2012. Civil Revision Application No.12 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff Vinay Vishweshwar Deshpande, aggrieved by the rejection of part of his claim made in the suit filed by him under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"). Civil Revision Application No. 14 of 2015 has been filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the suit being partly decreed in respect of claim of possession of the plaintiff for part of the property.

(2.) Since both parties are before this Court aggrieved by the said judgment and order, they are being referred to as per their original position before the Court below. The plaintiff and defendants are brothers. The case of the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the suit property, comprising of two rooms in house No. 494 and one room in house No.497 at Ward No.29 in Nagoba Galli No.1, Badkas Chowk, Mahal, Nagpur and that on 31.08.2011 he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession of two rooms in house No. 494 on the basis of an oral agreement with his uncle Vinayak Deshpande and he was in possession of one room of house no. 497 on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1999 executed by the defendants and their sister in his favour. The plaintiff was running a business from the said suit premises and it was claimed by him that when his workers found on 31.08.2011 that the aforesaid rooms comprising the suit property had been forcibly taken over by the defendants and the equipment pertaining to his business was thrown out, the cause of action for him arose in the present matter.

(3.) On the basis of the said grievance, the plaintiff approached the Police and submitted a complaint regarding such forcible dispossession but the Police registered a non- cognizable case. It is thereafter that on 5.1.2012 the plaintiff was constrained to file the aforesaid suit under Section 6 of the said Act, praying for a decree of possession in respect of the aforesaid suit property.