BABURAO VISHWANATH DIGHE Vs. KISAN BHIVAJI SANAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the original defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of possession passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1979, decided on 23.08.1983, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1984, by the District Judge, Ahmednagar, on 11.10.1989.

(2.) Briefly stated, the present respondent who was the original plaintiff filed suit stating that the wife of present appellant/defendant, Bhagirathibai, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1953 against the appellant for maintenance. For execution of decree obtained by her, Bhagirathibai filed Regular Darkhast No. 40 of 1968 against the present appellant. In that Darkhast out of land Survey no. 31/2, 1 Hectare 60 R portion on the Eastern side, situated at Arampur, Tal. Sangamner, was put on sale. The present respondent/plaintiff purchased said 1 Hectare 60 R portion of Survey no. 31/2. The auction sale was confirmed by the Court on 18.06.1969 and on 24.11.1978 sale certificate was issued. As per respondent/plaintiff, since he has become owner of the suit land by virtue of purchase in auction sale, he demanded possession. However, the defendant refused to handover possession and, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for getting possession. The suit is admittedly filed on 09.02.1979.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed written statement at Exh.16 and denied the suitclaim. According to him suit is not within limitation. He admitted that Regular Darkhast No. 40 of 1968 was filed by his wife Bhagirathibai, but according to him the plaintiff/respondent could not get and acquire ownership rights over the suit land on the basis of saledeed. He contended that he himself had purchased the property through the plaintiff/respondent as Benami. The plaintiff was Benamidar. The suit filed in 1979 is not tenable. In the written statement Exh.16, specific plea was taken that assuming that sale was made absolute and sale certificate was issued, as per Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the possession should have been claimed within one year and therefore the suit is time barred and the appellant/defendant has become owner by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act. He also contended that the suit is not tenable.