TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 175 of 2014, confirming decree of injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over suit property bearing gut No. 575 admeasuring 2 hectors, 10 Are, situated at village Karajkheda, Taluka and District - Osmanabad. 3. It appears that suit land originally had come to Khatunbi from her mother. Khatunbi had executed registered sale deed in favour of one Balbhim Andoji Sathe in respect of said lands. Later around 1980, Balbhim Sathe executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Shivaji Sadashiv Chavan in respect of gut No. 575 (erstwhile survey No. 17) referring to the description of the property. 4. Khatunbi had instituted regular civil suit No. 250 of 1980 seeking permanent injunction against Lalasah....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did appear after receipt of summons, however, had not filed written statement. As such, the matter went without their written statement. 9. Defendant No. 5, one of the sons of deceased Khatunbi filed written statement and denied contents of the plaint. He denied the sale deeds referred to hereinbefore and it is contended that the plaintiffs would never be the owners of the suit property. The property continued to be owned by deceased Khatunbi and after her, her heirs are in possession of suit property. Khatunbi had executed a nominal sale deed, since she was in need of some amount in order to secure its repayment. However, possession had never been handed over to him. Khatunbi returned the amount of Rs. 3000/-, but Balbhim Sathe had not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiffs, taking up grounds that revenue record prior to 1972 and onwards continuously shows that the defendants are in possession, however, the same has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Defendant No. 5 had denied the execution of the sale deeds in the written statement and the plaintiffs have not discharged their burden of proving sale deed in their favour. It would not be a case wherein it can be said that the contents of the sale deed stand proved merely by execution of document. Khatunbi had nominally executed the sale deed in favour of Balbhim Sathe, however, no possession had been delivered to him and trial Court has not considered said aspect. Record of consolidation also shows defendants to be the owners in poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defendants/appellants have given lot of stress on the entries in regard to the records of rights, consolidation record and decision of revenue fori in hierarchy. According to them having regard to the same, the sale deeds relied on, can be said to have been not acted upon at all and such suit for injunction could not be maintained. While appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate court has considered that defendant No. 5 has conceded to the title of the plaintiffs and further to that none of the sale deeds had been subject matter of challenge at the instance of the defendants. The appellate court has also considered the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and their witnesses and further considered that the defendants have not been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursuant to the appeal of deceased Khatunbi, Sub Divisional Officer Osmanabad remanded the matter for afresh hearing on 29.6.1994. The impugned order came to be upheld by Additional Commissioner Aurangabad on 25.3.2009 as seen the backdrop of litigation from copy of order Exh. 78. In Writ Petition No. 5076 of 2009, the Hon'ble High Court Bench at Aurangabad was pleased to continue status quo order on 4.11.2009 against the order impugned of Sub Divisional Officer Osmanabad as reflected from copy Exh. 99." 19. The appellate judge has also appreciated that there has been a long silence on behalf of the defendants despite the sale deeds being executed from time to time. The appellate court has referred to cross-examination of defendant No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her than sales. So the evidence of plaintiffs finds worthy of acceptance as to their title and possession over the suit land. With due respect, I do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for defendants in support of the defence. Per contra, sharing with the submissions of learned counsel for plaintiffs, I record affirmative findings point No. 1,2 and negative point No. 3." 20. Learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of his arguments in second appeal, purported to raise some dispute about the description of the property. Such a defence has never been taken and questioning the same now, particularly in the face of the fact that entire gut No. 575 is dealt with, loses its significance and, as such, stands dealt with....