R.N. Ray, J. - (1.) Plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1977 by Shri Shital Singh, Additional Civil Judge, Mathura on 20.8.1981 and that appeal arose out of O. S. No. 504/69.
(2.) Plaintiff has filed suit for khas possession basing his claim on a gift made by one Purshottam Das to Smt. Kamlawati Bahuji on 26.1.1989 who happens to be the 'Nati' of Smt. Kamlawati Sahuji. It was asserted by the plaintiff that Purshottam Das son of Keshav Das was the owner of the property althrough and he executed a gift deed dated 26.1.1989 in respect of the suit property and other properties to Smt. Kamlawati Bahuji who entered Into possession in pursuant to that deed. The defendants claimed that property in suit was gifted by one employee of Thakur Dwarkadish Ji in favour of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 executed a deed in favour of defendant No. 1 who was an employee of Thakur Dwarkadish Ji. The defendant No. 1 asserted title by virtue of adverse possession. The defendant further claimed that the suit property did not tally to schedule of gift deed made by Purshottam Das in favour of Smt. Kamlawati Bahuji. On perusal of pleadings, the learned trial court framed Issues and upon discussion regarding the possession and upon other materials on record, both oral and documentary evidences, decreed the suit for possession as the defendant failed to prove any title whatsoever in suit property. However, the learned appellate court below held that plaintiff was to prove his title of the suit property and suit property was not identified and on discussion over the relevant materials found that only three sets of boundaries tallied. There was some description of the property which existed at the relevant time but that did not tally with the property-in-suit. so he was pleased to hold property covered by that deed gift made in favour of Smt. Kamlawati Bahuji. dated 26.1.1989 was not identical with the suit property.
(3.) The learned appellate court held that the property was not properly described and the identity of the suit was doubtful and moreover the defendant claimed the property by adverse possession on the basis of an unregistered deed executed by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and he was pleased to hold that said deed was admissible in evidence and the defendant No- 2 was entitled to use the same as shield against the claim of plaintiff in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Through the learned appellate court below did not mention Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act but from his discussions it was clear that he held that said unregistered document could be used as a shield against the claim of the plaintiff for possession. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned appellate court did not assign any reason for disbelieving plaintiffs evidences and simply used one word that the evidence as adduced by the plaintiff was not of worth for believing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this finding is a jumping conclusion without proper reasoning as such it was perverse finding. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 26.1.1989 was more than 20 years old as such it was admissible in evidence and in this connection he has relied upon the decision in 1983 All LJ 865, wherein it has been held that certified copy of the gift deed can be relied upon if it is more than 20 years old and that is admissible in evidence and that Judgment was based upon a Full Bench decision of our Hon'ble Court in AIR 1989 All 385 and in that judgment the provisions of Section 27 and Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 were also fully discussed and it has been held that it was for the party to prove his title by adverse possession and the party who based his claim on title was not required to prove that title was not extinguished by adverse possession.;