GANGADHAR PANDURANG PURANIK Vs. DNYANOBA NIVRUTTI MUNDHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by original plaintiff No. 1, being aggrieved by dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 1974 filed by the present appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for possession, by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai, on 15th April, 1991; which judgment and decree was further confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1981, decided on 27.1.1988.

(2.) Survey No. 101 admeasuring 20 Acres 25 Gunthas, situated at village Kauthali, Tal. Ambajogai, is the suit land. It was originally belonging to Pandurang, the predecessor in title of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It was Inam land. The Inam was abolished under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. The said Act came into force on 1st July, 1960. It is case of the plaintiffs that after abolition, since Pandurang was in possession of the property, regrant of the land was made in his name and as such the plaintiffs have become owners of the property in view of the regrant and they are entitled to possession.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came with a case that on the day of Gudipadwa of 1953, Pandurang, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs had given entire suit land for cultivation to father of defendant No. 1 by name Nivrutti and to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on Batai basis. On 2nd March, 1955, Pandurang entered into agreement of sale with them. On 14.9.1958, sale-deed was executed by Pandurang in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and father of defendant No. 1. It is further said that on the basis of agreement of Batai (tenancy on crop share basis) and thereafter on the basis of agreement of sale and then on the basis of the sale-deed, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 continued to be in possession of the property. They have valid title to the property. Even assuming for a moment that due to regrant in the name of Pandurang and sale without permission, the sale in their favour was invalid, still respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have perfected their title by adverse possession. The suit is barred by limitation. It is alleged that since from 1953 or at least from 1955 onwards, they were in actual possession of the property and since Pandurang was not in possession of the property on 1st July, 1960; occupancy rights could not have been conferred on Pandurang and the order to that effect is illegal.