Bombay High Court
Purshottam S/O Parasram Nagpure And ... vs Mahatma Gandhi Smark Samiti, Lakhani, ... on 30 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:6803
-- 1 -- CRA 80.2019 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2019
1. Purushottam s/o Parasram Nagpure,
aged about 66 years
2. Kusum w/o Purushottam Nagpure,
aged about 56 years
3. Deepak s/o Purushottam Nagpure,
aged about 38 years .. Applicants
4. Nohal s/o Purushottam Nagpure, (Original Defendants)
aged about 36 years
5. Roshan s/o Purushottam Nagpure,
aged about 34 years
All Residents of Lakhani, Tahsil
Lakhani, District Bhandara
Versus
1. Mahatma Gandhi Smarak Samiti,
Lakhani, Through its President
Dr.Vikas Shankarrao Gabhane, aged
about 56 years
2. Mahatma Gandhi Smarak Samiti,
Lakhani, Through its Secretary
.. Respondents
Dr.Sudhir Mukundrao Randive, aged (Original Plaintiffs)
about 62 years
Both R/o Lakhani, Tq. Lakhani,
Dist.Bhandara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H.H.Jichkar, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A.M.Quazi, Advocate for respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : APRIL 30, 2026
PAGE 1 OF 4
-- 2 -- CRA 80.2019 (J).odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) The present revision is filed in order to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18/12/2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lakhani in R.C.S.No.31/2010, which was a suit for recovery of possession filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The applicants are the original defendants and respondents are the original plaintiffs. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.
(3) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession with respect to the suit property claiming that it is a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and was owner and possessor of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is one of the trustees and illegally occupied the suit property since March, 2010. The allegation is that the defendants started illegal construction on the suit property on 03/03/2010. (4) The defendants opposed the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendants is that the defendant No.1 was PAGE 2 OF 4
-- 3 -- CRA 80.2019 (J).odt Tahsil President of the 'Rashtriya Seva Dal' and only surviving trustee of the said trust. It was contended that the suit property was donated by the plaintiff to 'Rastriya Seva Dal' somewhere in the year 1984 and as per orders of the erstwhile President of 'Rashtriya Seva Dal' the defendant No.1 was residing in the suit property along with his family and was managing without remuneration.
(5) The learned trial Court has discarded the defence put forth by the defendants and has passed decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had donated the property to 'Rashtriya Seva Dal'. This defence implies that at one point of time even according to the defendants, plaintiff was owner of the suit property. The defendants have failed to prove that the property was donated to 'Rashtriya Seva Dal'. Therefore, ownership of plaintiff, although it may not be much relevance in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, cannot be disputed. (6) Learned trial Court has found that although the defendant No.1 claimed to be in occupation of the suit property since the year 1988, construction of the building over the suit property was completed in the year 2000. It must also be stated that the defendants have placed on record a document titled as authority letter purported to be issued by one Atmaram as Secretary of the plaintiff PAGE 3 OF 4
-- 4 -- CRA 80.2019 (J).odt trust. Perusal of the said document will indicates that the defendant No.1 was allowed to occupy the suit property as a care-taker. Although the said defence is not established, it must be noted that it is the case of the defendant No.1 that he is in occupation of the suit property as a care-taker. It is well settled that the possession of a servant, caretaker, or agent is the possession of the master or the principal. Therefore, even taking the case of the defendant No.1 on its face value it cannot be said that the defendant No.1 was ever in possession of the suit property in his independent capacity.
(7) The learned trial Court has properly considered the entire evidence on record and has arrived at findings of fact to the effect that the defendants had indeed started residing in the suit property since 03/03/2010 and suit is instituted on 31/10/2010. The defendants have not brought on record any evidence to infer that they were residing in the suit property prior to a period of 6 months from the date of institution of suit. This finding of fact does not warrant any interference in a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision Application is therefore, rejected.
[ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 4 OF 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/05/2026 14:43:39