NARAYAN RAMU KARALE Vs. SHANTABAI ANNA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submissions of both the sides.

(2.) This second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 03rd March, 2011 passed by the District Judge1 Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 1999 as also the Judgment and Order dated 30th March, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon at Tasgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1977; whereby the Regular Suit filed by Anna Mahadgonda Patil (Original Plaintiff) against the legal heirs of Ramu Krishna Karale was decreed and legal heirs of said Ramu Krishna Karale were directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit house property to the Plaintiff.

(3.) It appears that one Krishna Bhosale died in the year 1940, leaving behind Rajjubai, his widow and two daughters Akkubai and Tanubai. It is to be noted that Tanubai died on 03.08.1977. Smt. Rajjubai, the widow of Krishna had executed the registered gift deed in the year 1946 in favour of her daughter Akkubai, excluding her other daughter Tanubai from claiming the house property. Akkubai then sold the house property by a registered sale deed dated 30th July, 1976 (Exhibit 76). The sale deed was executed in favour of the Plaintiff Anna (the original Plaintiff). The trial Court while deciding the Regular Civil Suit No. 321/1977 has considered the facts pleaded including the registered documents, gift deed as well as the sale deed, both the registered transfer documents on the basis of which the Plaintiff has claimed ownership title to the suit house property. In the result, the trial Court held that the Plaintiff had acquired ownership title to the suit house property and he has been dispossessed by the Defendants in the month of October, 1976. The contention of the Defendants in the suit that the sale deed dated 30th July, 1976 was bogus, fraudulent, illegal and without consideration was specifically negatived on the ground that the Defendants could not prove that the sale deed was executed in favour of the Plaintiff by means of a fraud played on Akkubai. It is also pertinent to note that the Defendant did not enter into witness box to substantiate the contentions in respect of the alleged fraud or illegality though pleaded. Under these circumstances evidence as to the ownership and title of the Plaintiff over the suit house property was held established before the trial Court and the suit was decreed. The Defendant being aggrieved by the said decree passed by the trial Court had challenged the same in Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.387 of 1999 before the Court of District Judge1, Sangli. The First Appeal was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 3rd March, 2011. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court that the Plaintiff had proved his title to the suit property and accordingly rejected the Appeal including the prayer of remanding the case to the trial Court, as canvassed by the Appellant herein to lead evidence on the basis of the alleged Will deed. The said prayer was sought to be pressed into service again at the stage of the Second Appeal. Be that as it may, apart from the bare pleadings in the written statement alleging that the sale deed executed by Akkubai was bogus and without consideration and that it was executed by practicing fraud upon Akkubai. No evidence was led by the Defendants to prove their contentions pleaded in the written statement. In the result, the First Appeal was dismissed.