PARMANAND GOPALRAO KESARI Vs. DILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff has filed this second appeal challenging judgment and order dated 03/08/2015 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Akola (Appellate Court), whereby appeal filed by the respondents (original defendants) was allowed and decree passed in favour of the appellants was set aside.

(2.) The predecessor of the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of vacant plot bearing Plot No.91, Nazul Sheet No.56 in an area called Pensionpura, Sindhi Camp, Akola, Maharashtra. It was claimed by the said plaintiff that the aforesaid plot was granted to him by Ex-Serviceman Cooperative Housing Society, Akola, as he was an ex-serviceman himself, by a registered lease deed dated 27/02/1974, pursuant to which, a certificate was issued by the society being transferee share certificate No.40 in the name of the said plaintiff regarding the said plot. It was claimed that a house was constructed on the said plot, which later collapsed due to its dilapidated condition. But, the said plaintiff continued in peaceful possession of the said plot. In the plaint itself, it was stated that although the respondents (original defendants) had no concern with the said plot, the name of the husband of respondent No.4 (original defendant No.2) was recorded in the record of rights in respect of the said plot as a lease had been granted earlier by the same society in his favour. It was claimed that the lease was not acted upon and that therefore, such an entry in the record of rights was of no consequence. It was further claimed that on 02/04/2005 the respondents sought to disturb possession of the original plaintiff in the said plot by seeking to remove fencing erected by the original plaintiff. It was claimed that a Police complaint was made by the original plaintiff and that the respondents also lodged a complaint, but the Police did not take cognizance of the said complaints. It was stated that the cause of action arose on 02/04/2005 and on that basis the suit was filed on 04/04/2005 seeking permanent injunction.

(3.) The predecessor of respondent no.1 and respondent nos.4,5 and 6 filed their written statement disputing the claims made by the original plaintiff. It was contended that a registered lease deed had been executed in favour of husband of respondent No.4 in the year 1969 itself and that the said respondents were in possession of the suit plot. It was claimed that the name of the husband of respondent No.4 was recorded in the record of rights and that the allegations made by the original plaintiff regarding alleged attempt by the said respondents to disturb possession of the plaintiff in the suit plot were false, because the said respondent No.4 was in possession of the said plot.