CHHABU PUNJA GAIKWAD Vs. VISHNU NANA CHAVAN
LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-178
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 15,2017

CHHABU PUNJA GAIKWAD Appellant
VERSUS
VISHNU NANA CHAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C.GUPTE, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This Second Appeal challenges a judgment and order passed by the District Court at Nashik. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein from the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in a suit for possession and reconveyance filed by the Respondent.
(3.) The case of the Respondent (Original Plaintiff) before the Trial Court was that the suit property, being an agricultural land bearing Survey No.275 and admeasuring 22 Ars, was mortgaged by the Respondent to the Appellant by way of a conditional sale. The mortgage money was Rs.1500/, whereas the repayment period was of 10 years. Since the possession of the mortgaged property was handed over to the Appellant for his use, there was no provision for payment of interest. It was submitted by the Respondent that, in the year 1973, the Respondent had repaid the sum of Rs.1500/to the Appellant but that the Appellant retained the possession of the suit property. The Appellant, in the premises, filed this suit claiming redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession of the suit property from the Appellant. In his written statement, the Appellant claimed the suit transaction as an outright sale and not a mortgage. It was submitted that this suit property was sold by the Respondent to the Appellant, according to the then market price of Rs.1500/, but that since the parties had friendly relations between them, merely by way of a concession, the deed was termed as a conditional sale and a provision was made for reconveyance of the suit property in favour of the Respondent on payment of Rs.1500/. Alternatively, it was claimed that since, on 29 March 1973, the Appellant had acknowledged receipt of the sum of Rs.1500/from the Respondent, and, at the same time, refused to handover possession of the suit property, the Appellant was actually in adverse possession with effect from 29 March 1973 and, having continued for over 12 years in such possession, has become an owner of the suit property by adverse possession. It was argued that the Respondent's suit for recovery of possession was bared by the law of limitation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.