BALA DOLA Vs. HEERALAL URAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass but the question of law emerging therefrom does have substantiality.

(2.) THE contending parties both claim under one Bonda who was admittedly the owner of the suit property at one point of time. The plaintiff-appellant claimed to have acquired title from Bonda under a registered deed of sale dated 18-11-1961 and sued the defendants for possession alleging the possession of the defendants to be unauthorised. The defendants Nos. 11 and 12 who are the principal contestants relied on an unregistered deed of sale dated 3-7-1950 entitled as an agreement executed by bonda in their favour whereby Bonda had alienated the land to these defendants, possession was delivered thereunder and the consideration too was paid by them to bonda They submitted that they having been in possession continuously since 3-7-1950 under the said deed claiming to be the owners of the land, firstly their possession was protected by the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of Transfer of property Act and in the alternative they had also perfected their title by adverse possession which would render the suit of the plaintiff filed on 28-6-1972 not maintainable.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court found that the deed dated 3-7-1950 was executed by Bonda in favour of the defendants Nos. 11 and 12; that Bonda had delivered possession to the defendants under the deed and ever since then the defendants have continued to be in possession; and that though Bonda had executed the registered deed of sale dated 18-11-1961 in favour of the, plaintiff but possession thereunder was not delivered to the plaintiff as the same was with the defendants. Nos. 11 and 12. In arriving at these findings the lower appellate Court has not only taken into consideration the evidence of the contesting defendants but has also observed that the admissions made by the plaintiff's witnesses lent support to the defendants' evidence. These findings are basically of facte and unassailable in second appeal. Even the learned counsel for the appellant has been fair enough not to challenge the findings of fact. What he has vehemendy attacked is the approach of the lower appellate Court whereby it has held that the defendants Nos. 11 and 12 would be entitled to' protect their possession under Section 53-A'of Transfer of Property Act and mat their possession being adverse to the real owner would ripen into title on lapse of 12 years.