Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The two judgments which are under challenge in the aforesaid two appeals arise from common evidence both documentary and oral led in the two cases before the learned trial Court. It will be convenient to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of accordingly.

2. Civil Suit No. 177 of 1975 was filed by the three daughters of Durgaji Bhange, namely, Anjanabai, Bhimabai and Chindha-bai for declaration and partition of Khasra Nos. 72, 73, 74/1 and 76/1 situated at Mouza Parsodi, Tq. and District Nagpur. It is alleged in the plaint that the said Durgaji died in the year 1962 leaving behind the three daughters who are the plaintiffs and five sons, namely, Ganashyam, Narayan, Shamrao, Sitaram and Ramdas -- the defendants Nos. 8 to 12. The plaintiffs are all married. After the death of Durgaji, the suit fields were inherited by the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 12. It is further alleged in the plaint that Durgaji and his sons managed the property in suit. Durgaji himself was indebted to the extent of Rs. 2550/-or so. This debt could have easily been paid by defendants Nos. 8 to 12 from and out of the income of the agricultural property. The sons of Durgaji, that is the defendants Nos. 8 to 12, at the instance of one Mithalal Maheswari, who was a friend of defendant No. 8, prevailed upon him and his brothers to sell away the suit fields representing that they would get purchasers who could pay a good price. The suit fields were hence sold to Jaswantibal --defendant No. 1, Tarabai - defendant No. 5, Hansagauri -- defendant No. 6, Dhirajbai --defendant No. 6(a), Narmadabai -- defendant No. 7 and one Kashibai for consideration of Rs. 24,000/- only. The plaintiffs claimed 1/8th share each in the suit fields. The three plaintiffs together claimed 3/8th share in the suit fields. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale of suit fields in respect of their share is not binding upon them and the saledeed is void. The 3/8th share in the suit fields would be 5.40 acres. They claimed that they are in possession of the suit fields. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the alleged sale-deed registered on 25-2-1963 in respect of 3/4 th share is not binding on them apart from the claim for preliminary decree of partition in 14.99 acres of the suit fields.

15. It will be of interest to note that though the sale in favour of the defendants is challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit filed by them for declaration, partition and possession, no date of, sale is disclosed in the pleadings. In the relief clause the declaration is claimed in the following words:--

"Plaintiffs pray for following reliefs:
(a) Declaration that the alleged sale deed registered on 25-2-1963 in respect of 3/8th share of the plaintiffs is not binding on the plaintiffs and the defendants 8 to 12 had no right to transfer the plaintiffs' share and the defendants 1 to 8 get no title to 3/ 8th share in the suit property, and

19. It is the case of the purchasers, viz. the defendants that they were dispossessed by the plaintiffs in June 1975 and that was the period when cause of action arose to them to file the suit. Chindhabai (D. W. 2) admits that she took possession of suit land in June, 1975. It is hence clear that the purchaser remained in possession from the date of saledeed, that is, 31-10-1962 till they were dispossessed in June, 1975. Even if the time is computed from the date of knowledge, that is, somewhere in November, 1962 then the purchasers were in uninterrupted possession for the period of twelve years. The suit of declaration, partition and possession is filed on 21-2-1975, that is, after a period of 12 years from the date the defendants were placed in possession and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It was hence contended on behalf of the purchasers (defendants) that they have perfected their title by prescription against the plaintiffs and we find that the contention needs to be upheld.

25. Firstly, the admissibility of the certified copy of the sale was never challenged by the plaintiffs and rightly so because their suit is also based on the very same document though with an ulterior purpose a wrong date of registration is given. In the absence of the saledeed (Exh. 43) the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, partition and possession must fail on this count itself. In this connection, the pleadings of the plaintiffs in paragraphs 7 and 8 arc sufficient. We may say that the saledeed (Exh. 43) is not in dispute at all. Secondly, we do not find any objection being raised to the document being filed along with the application for taking it on record. The objection was not even raised while the document was being exhibited. We also do not find any such ground raised in the memo of appeal. Thirdly, it is not possible to examine the vendors the excutants of the documents who are the opponents in the case and are in collusion with the plaintiffs which is established by their absence in the proceedings. Fourthly, the execution of the document is admitted by Anjanabai as well as by Chindhabai in their statements recorded on oath. In these circumstances, the certified copy of the satedeed (Ext. 43) is good enough to prove the transfer as well as its contents. (See AIR 1934 PC 55).