JUDGEMENT
AVINASH G.GHAROTE,J. -
(1.)Both the learned counsels for the parties are ad-idem that suit before the trial court has nothing whatsoever to do with the saledeed dated 02.07.13 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and one Haridas, which is for an area admeasuring 0.41 R from land of Khasra No. 64. The suit is restricted to land admeasuring 0.41 R from and out of the land of Khasra No. 64 (which is separate from the subject matter of the sale-deed dated 02.07.2013), which land is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff under the saledeed dated 18.04.2014, executed in his favour by Kasturibai Nandurkar, Raju Nandurkar and Seema Bondre. The Defendant/petitioner, claims that earlier agreement of sale in respect of a portion of this land dated 18.05.2012, which is claimed to have been executed by Kasturibai Nandurkar, Raju Nandurkar and Seema Bondre, in his favour, which is in respect of 0.20 R land from and out of the land of Khasra No. 64, is in his possession under the agreement dated 18.05.2012.
(2.)It is further an admitted position that the agreement, dated 18.05.2012 is un-stamped and un-registered. This land which is claimed by the defendant under the agreement dated 18.05.2012, according to the defendant, forms part and parcel of land admeasuring 0.41 R, which is the subject matter of the sale-deed dated 19.04.2014. It is thus apparent that in so far as this sale deed dated 19.04.2014 is concerned and the land subject to it, the claim of the defendant as based upon the agreement dated 18.05.2012, would be restricted to the land admeasuring 0.20 R as indicated by the agreement dated 18.05.2012.
(3.)The learned trial Court has disbelieved the claim of the defendant of being in possession of this piece of land which is the subject matter of the agreement dated 18.05.2012, on the ground that the agreement is un-stamped as well as not registered. Even otherwise, the petitioner/defendant could not have laid any claim to the land which was the subject matter of the sale deed date 19.04.2014 over and above to the extent of area as contained in the agreement dated 18.05.2012. It is further material to note that the order of injunction as passed by the learned trial Court is dated 22.12.2016. The judgment of the appellate Court in Misc.Civil Appeal No. 1/2017, which appeal was at the behest of the present petitioner/ defendant, confirms the finding of the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property and is delivered on 12.01.2017. The findings of the plaintiff being in possession are based upon the sale-deed dated 19.04.2014 in favour of the plaintiff as well as the affidavit of the owners/cultivators of the neighboring fields, namely Krushnarao Nagorao Ingle and Sunil Sambhappa Chafde. Both the courts below have disbelieved the claim made by the defendant of his being in possession of the property in question and so also the affidavits of Seema Bondre, Vinod Mawalkar and Shivdas Raut, who are also claimed to be owners of the adjoining lands.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.