- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Plaintiff is the appellant before us. Father of the respondent was owner of four godowns and the land surrounding them admeasuring 1 acre and 4 guntas being Survey No. 462, situated at Village Saikheda, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. The said godowns were numbered as Grampanchayat No. 753 to 761. Indisputably, a deed of sale was executed by the father of the respondent in favour of Vimal Chand Ghevar Chand Jain & Co., a partnership firm, on or about 29.6.1974. The said deed of sale was registered at Mumbai. Respondent himself was a witness to the said deed of sale. On or about 1.7.1978, the possession of the said property was allegedly handed over to the father of the respondent as a licensee at an agreed licence fee of Rs. 1,257.50 per month. The said partnership firm was dissolved pursuant whereto the appellant became the owner of the said property. Appellants contend that the respondent had made payments towards licence fee by a cheque but when deposited, the same was dishonoured. On the said contention, appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession which was marked as Special Suit No. 330 of 1987 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs : (a) That it be declared that the defendant has no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the property, viz., being the plot of land admeasuring one acre four gunthas or thereabouts, that is 5,324 sq. yards (44 gunthas x 121 sq. yds.) equivalent to 4451.53 sq. meters, along with 6 (six) corrugated iron-sheet godowns, one house and one well thereon, known as Kandechichawli situated at Gram Panchayat Nos. 753 to 761 in the village Saykheda, Sub-District Niphad, District Nasik or say part thereof, or to store or keep any goods, articles or things therein or to use, enter upon or remain upon the said property or any part thereof, and that the defendant is in wrongful use and occupation of the said property. (b) That the defendant be ordered to remove himself, his servants, agents and all his goods, articles and things from the said property. (c) That the defendant by himself, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever De restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this honourable Court from in any manner storing or keeping any goods, articles or things or using, occupying or entering upon or remaining in use and occupation of the said property or any part thereof. (d) That the defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 45,270/ - being the arrears of storage charges and/ or compensation for the period of three years prior to the institution of the suit at the rate of Rs. 1,257.50 per month with interest on Rs. 45,270/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the defendant remove himself, his servants and agents and his goods, articles and things from the said property. (e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Court Receiver or some other fit and proper be appointed Receiver of the said property, with all powers under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant by himself, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon'ble Court, from in any manner, storing or keeping any goods, articles or things or using or entering upon or remaining in use or occupation of the said property or any part there of, (g) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained by an order and Injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner dealing with or disposing of, or alienating or encumbering or creating any right, title or interest in favour of any one in respect of the said property or any part thereof."
(3.) Respondent, in his written statement, denied and disputed the said transactions. We may notice some of the statements made therein : "25. The title of the suit property was with my Advocate. After that I have received the title. Plaintiffs have never objected to that. I was never the owner nor having possession after this suit. I have made a wrong application to put my name as owner. And enclosed statement in English. Plaintiffs are calling this statement in English as Sale Deed. Neither me nor my father have executed any Sale Deed. We have never sold the suit property. 26. Thinking that, I store onions in the suit property the plaintiffs have created a wrong story of storage charges and asked for a big amount from me which is not acceptable by me. Plaintiffs are doing business of earning interest illegally for which they use various names. Various firms are being opened. All these firms and names are bogus. Few days back plaintiffs in the plaint. One bogus firm was opened in 1981 by the plaintiffs. Some relations have been shown by that firm with me. That firm has given some cheques to me. Some entries have been made by that firm for that cheque given to me. After some neat calculation it has been shown that the cheque is for storage charges has started in the plaints. Plaintiffs have collected a lot of information on about me. I understand that plaintiffs are making open plans and skillfully make some transactions and showing some relation file suits and get orders. 27. The relation of licensor and licensee was never existing between us and no Deed has been executed. Plaintiffs have applied for title name in record of rights after filing the suit and thus various wrongs have been committed. Plaintiffs have pressurized my servants and given them attraction of money and succeeded obtaining various xerox copies of some papers. After arranging many things various photos have been taken. Besides this, plaintiffs are doing various other business. 28. Plaintiffs have arranged to pay taxes of the suit property, and paid the taxes of Saikheda on 11.1.88 and 23.1.88 and received the receipt. The cashier accepting the tax does not have a responsibility of inquiring that who is paying the tax and is been never inquired.. 29. Plaintiffs have been recorded in cross-examination at the time of making application from title names in record of rights at Saykheda. At that time plaintiffs have accepted many things which are stated here. At that time, false Sale deed was produced which plaintiffs have stated as registered. Revenue authorities have ordered to mention plaintiffs names in the column of 'other rights'. Out of such other rights plaintiffs does not get any right to the property. Further, order of revenue authorities is illegal, and is out of the law and out of their rights of making order and such order is a nullity. Because of such order plaintiffs does not get any rights and therefore plaintiffs suit is wrong not tenable.";