Chandrakant S/O Rambhau Kaware v. Pandurang Annayaji Patil (Dalavi) (Dead By Lrs.) Sushilabai Wd/O Pandurang Patil (Dalvi) And Others

0507sa95.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second Appeal No.95 of 2015 (Chandrakant Rambhau Kaware v. Pandurang Annayaji Patil (Dalavi) (Dead), through LRs. Smt. Sushilabai Pandurang Patil (Dalvi) and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.

Ms Ira Khisti, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Dated : 5 th July, 2016 The Trial dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 2000 for setting aside the alienation dated 15-3-1999, i.e. the sale-deed in favour of the defendant No.1, and for possession of the suit property on the basis of title, i.e. the sale-deed dated 12-6-1979, on 13-11-2006. In Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2007, the learned District Judge has set aside the decision of the Trial Court on 26-4-2013 and the decree is passed granting a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit plot comprising 4,263 sq.ft. of Nazul Plot No.275, Sheet No.17-A, situated at Badnera, including the disputed land comprising 792 sq.ft. at the exclusion of the defendants. The Appellate Court has passed a decree cancelling the sale-deed dated 15-3-1999 executed by one Bhanudas in favour of the appellant-defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is directed to hand over the possession of the suit plot to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership over the entire suit property on the basis of the registered sale-deed

0507sa95.15.odt dated 12-6-1979 from certain joint owners. The case of the appellant-defendant No.1 was that one Bhanudas was the co-owner of the suit property and he had executed the registered sale-deed dated 15-3-1999 in respect of 792 sq.ft. of land, and by virtue of it, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner. The lower Appellate Court has held that the sale-deed dated 15-3-1999 was not executed by the vendor Bhanudas, but it was executed by one Ramesh s/o Shrawanji Bhajbhuje, the defendant No.2 in the suit. It has also held that neither the vendor Bhanudas nor his power of attorney, the defendant No.2, have entered the witness-box. It has held that the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 12-6-1979 at Exhibit 118 was executed by all the co-owners and though it did not bear the signature of Bhanudas, it was a sale covered by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act by the ostensible owner.

In view of this, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The second appeal is dismissed.

Judge.

Lanjewar