Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It's the case of plaintiff Navle that the suit land was belonging to Dattatraya Pansare, Bapu Pansare, appellant No. 1 and appellant no. 4 and that was in his possession since 1987-1988. In the year 1993-1994, defendant/Pansare is stated to have agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 4,25,000/- to plaintiff Navle. Earnest of Rs. 12,000/- was given to the defendant/Pansare. It is further contended that as the suit land was of Devasthan Inam land, permission was required for selling it. It is further contended that from time to time the consideration was paid in installments and plaintiff/Navle developed the land. His possession was obstructed by the defendant Pansare and that was a cause to file suit for injunction simplisitor. On the same pleadings Regular Civil Suit No. 177/2004 filed by defendant Pansare for possession is contested by plaintiff Navle.

9. After considering oral and documentary evidence on record trial court held that plaintiff/Navle admitted title of the defendant Pansare. It was SA 450 08 451 08.odt agreed between them to sell suit land but no written document was executed. The possession of plaintiff Arun is recorded to be that of trespasser after 1993-1994, hence his suit for injunction was dismissed and decree of possession was passed.

10. The lower Appellate Court by common judgment and decree dated 10.03.2008 recorded that there is no tangible evidence of title of the defendant Pansare. The suit land is recorded to be Devasthan Inam land and Sindiya family was the original owner. The suit for possession is held to be bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further recorded that defendant Pansare failed to prove dispossession on 29.06.2004. Hence, the decree in both suits passed by the Trial Court is reversed by the Lower Appellate Court.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that when plaintiff/Navle has put forth theory of agreement to sell then the ownership of Pansare family should not have been disputed. It is submitted that possession of plaintiff Navle is unlawful. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court should have been upheld. It is further submitted it is not pleaded by plaintiff Navle that Sandiya family was the original owner.

13. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bendre appearing for plaintiff Navle supports impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate SA 450 08 451 08.odt Court. He would submit that his client was cultivating the suit land since 1987 and continuously in possession, which is corroborated by revenue record. He would therefore submit that the suit land was Devasthan Inam land and no document of title was placed on record by Pansare family. It is further submitted that Pansare family miserably failed to prove alleged dispossession on 29.06.2004. It is further submitted that the possession of plaintiff Navle is settled and lawful. It is further submitted that proceedings are pending in the High Court in between Pansare family and Sindiya family. The substantial question of law needs to be answered in his favour.

20. It is tried to be pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Bedre that proceedings are pending between Pansare family and Sindiya family in High Court. It is tried to be contended that the suit land is the Devasthan Inam land. No material is placed on record to show that erstwhile owner Sindiya family has ever claimed ownership and title over the suit land. Writ petition No. 2527/2002 is arising out of the revenue proceedings. No substantive proceedings have been filed by Sindiya family claiming title over the suit land against Pansare family. Neither was any claim of possession on title was made by them. Hence, it is patent illegality to non suit Pansare family for non joinder of necessary parties.