RAMESHWAR GOPIKISHAN TOSHNIWAL Vs. SAKHUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL defendant has come up in Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated April 28, 1983, passed by the Assistant Judge, Jalna, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 117/81 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 28, 1979 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambad in Regular Civil Suit No. 87/76. Original plaintiff present respondent - Sakhubai initiated the proceedings for possession of the suit land from defendant. In nut shell, the case was, Vithoba Gaikwad i. e. the husband of the plaintiff who expired in the year 1972 was the owner of Survey No. 210 to the extent of 18 acres. He had become the owner in pursuance of the tenancy proceedings by way of conferral ownership on him under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. Naturally, after the death of Vithoba, present lady - Sakhubai became the owner thereof. She cultivated the suit land. However, some time in the year 1973, the present appellant original defendant illegally and forcibly occupied the suit portion i. e. 4 acres and 20 gunthas out of the above land. Not only this, but sometime in the year 1976, plaintiff realised that the defendant had even surreptitiously got entered his name into the revenue record so far as that area was concerned. On demand of possession by the plaintiff, a blunt refusal was there on the part of the defendant which prompted the present respondent to initiate the present proceedings.

(2.) THE defence of the appellant in short was, Vithoba was never the owner of the land, muchless from the year 1967 to 1972-73. According to him, the plaintiff never possessed the land in the year 1972-73 or any time prior to that. He came up with a defence that he got the land purchased from Vithoba through a registered sale-deed dated May 30, 1967. He, therefore, rested his defence also on the revenue entries which were made in pursuance thereof.

(3.) AFTER weighing the evidence on the record and after having appreciated the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court observed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land through her husband. He also reached to the conclusion that even after the death of her husband, Sakhubai never possessed the said land, muchless in the year 1973. The learned Judge of the trial Court, relying on the sale-deed observed that the land was purchased by the appellant defendant Rameshwar and he was having the possession of the land since then. The learned Judge of the trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit on all counts.