MANIK RAO Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant, who have lost in both the Courts. This Court vide order dated 31-7-1996 while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law :--

(2.) The trial Court initially, vide judgment and decree dated 25-11-1975 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and directed the defendants to handover the joint possession of 1/3rd share in the suit lands. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, the matter was remanded. The trial Court thereafter vide judgment and decree dated 28-3-1990 inter alia held that plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit lands. It was further held that defendants have not been able to prove that plaintiffs' father had entered into an agreement for sale dated 7-7-1961 and handed over the possession of suit lands to the defendants. Accordingly, it was held that plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit lands. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendants preferred an appeal. The lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-3-1996 on the basis of Ex. D/7, D/8 and D/9 held that plaintiffs father namely Sudarshan Rao had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendants. It was further held that Sudarshan Rao died in the year 1962 leaving behind his son namely the plaintiff and four daughters, therefore, the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the suit lands. It was further held that plaintiff is entitled to obtain possession of the suit lands.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower Appellate Court grossly erred in holding that plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit lands in the face of Ex. D/7, D/8 and D/9. It was also submitted that defendants are in possession of the lands in question under the agreement dated 7-7-1961 and, therefore, are entitled to protection of their possession under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.