LAKSHMAN BALVANT KHISTI Vs. VASUDEV MOHONIRAJ PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to possession from the defendant No. 2-respondent.

(2.) In 1902 Ramrao and Shamrao were in difficulties and passed the sale-deed of June 22, 1902, in favour of defendant No. 1. That sale-deed is held by both the lower Courts to have been benami and possession retained by the vendors, On August 6, 1923, defendant No. 1 respondent passed a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, under which the present suit is brought. The only issues in the lower Court, apart from whether the plaintiff proves his sale-deed, were the benami nature of the transaction, whether possession had been with defendant No. 1 or with defendant No. 2, and in the latter case, whether the possession with defendant No. 2 was adverse to plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his sale-deed, but answered all the other questions in favour of defendant No. 2 The plaintiff's appeal failed in the District Court on the same grounds. He now appeals to this Court.