In this second appeal concerning possession, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that defendants failed to prove adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable to the respondents.
Second Appeal dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 391 OF 1989
Deoram Nathu Badgujar [ since Deceased ] - through L.Rs. : 1-A. Vedabai Deoram Badgujar Age : 90 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : At & Post : Bahadapur, Tq. Parola, Dist. : Jalgaon.
1-B. Bhikaji Deoram Badgujar Age : 54 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : At & Post : Manjalpur, Badoda ( Gujrat State ). 1-C. Chhagan Deoram Badgujar Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Wapi, Tq. Pardi, Dist. Balsar ( Gujrat State ). 1-D. Ramkrishna Deoram Badgujar Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : At & Post : Dondaicha, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. : Dhule. .... APPELLANTS
V E R S U S
2 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
Mr. V.T.Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellants.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/06/2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
possession. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The original defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal. The defendant no. 1 has filed the present Second Appeal.
original number of Appeal is S.A. No. 291 of 1985 ]. The Court, at the
time of admission of the Appeal, observed that the points regarding plaintiff’s title, limitation and defendants’ completing title by adverse
3 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
possession are substantial questions of law.
date, it was adjourned at the behest of the respondents. Today when the matter is called out, none appears for the respondents.
submits that the husband of plaintiff no. 1 was attesting witness to the sale deed executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendant no. 3 on 12/12/1956. In view of that, it can safely be concluded that plaintiff no. 1 was aware of the transaction entered by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 4 is a son of plaintiff no. 1. Even the property was transferred by plaintiff no. 1 in favour of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 and mutation entry to that effect was also effectuated. According to the learned counsel, the defendant no. 3 thereafter sold the suit property to defendant no. 1 on 06/03/1965.
the sale deed, the defendants are in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit property and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. V/s K.C. Alexander
4 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
and Ors. Reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court – 1165 and another Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondar Singh & Ors. V/s Nihal Singh & Ors. Reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court – 1905 ( 1 ) .
5 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
“ Admittedly, plaintiff no. 1 was not a party to the said sale deed. Merely because her husband signed the said sale deed is not sufficient to attribute the knowledge of the sale deed to plaintiff no. 1. The evidence further reveals that plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 were residing at Dhule. Admittedly, plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 were minor at that time. The said fact also receives substantial corroboration from the admission of defendant
6 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
no. 3 Murlidhar Nago Patil. He had admitted in cross examination that the time of sale transaction none of the plaintiffs were present. Further admission is the most damaging to the cause of the defendants. He has admitted that plaintiff no. 1 along with plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 went to Dhule during their minority and none of the plaintiffs entered the suit land at any time after they left for Dhule. The said admission also assumes much importance. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that at the time of the sale deed [ Exh. 54 ] and thereafter also the plaintiff no. 1 was residing with her husband at Shirsode. More over, there is also no evidence on record that husband of plaintiff no. 1 was residing at Dhule ”.
7 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
KNP/S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
8 S.A. 391.1989 - [ J ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit was barred by limitation and defendants perfected title by adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding ratification of the sale deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nair Service Society Ltd. V/s K.C. Alexander and Ors.Referred¶34
Nair Service Society Ltd. V/s K.C. Alexander and Ors. Reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court – 1165 · Who else cites this
Bondar Singh & Ors. V/s Nihal Singh & Ors.Referred¶36
Bondar Singh & Ors. V/s Nihal Singh & Ors. Reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court – 1905 ( 1 ) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deoram Nathu Badgujar LRs
Sattarbeg Sarasbeg
Sarasbeg Meerbeg
Hasanoobee W/o Shaikh Kamruddin
Sattarbeg Meerbeg
Babu Meerbeg
S.V.Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
