- (1.)Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Khapre for the appellant/defendant. Also heard learned Advocate Shri R.N. Ghuge, for respondent no.1/original plaintiff no.1, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no.1.
(2.)The plaintiffs ' suit for possession of the suit land was decreed by the Trial Court. When the defendant filed First Appeal, he was not successful and decree was confirmed. That is how, he had come by way of the Second Appeal.
(3.)After reading the papers, it reveals that the plaintiffs have come up with a case of money lending transaction by their predecessor in title Shri Motilal Jivandas Jogi with the defendant. Whereas the defendant on one hand, has denied the money lending transaction and on the other has pleaded about the transaction of purchase of land from the said Motilal Jogi as per the agreement for sale dated 17/04/1995 and claimed to be in possession since then. The suit is for restoration of possession, with the theory that it was forcibly taken by the defendant from the said Motilal in the year 1996-1997. Both the parties have adduced evidence before the Trial Court. The plaintiff examined Suraj plaintiff no.1 and Amarchand Panchawatkar, their relatives. Whereas defendant has examined himself and one Manik Hanwata More (on the point of purchase transaction), one Bhimrao Sarnaik (the adjacent land owner), one Gajanan Sarnaik (on the point of giving possession by said Motilal Jogi to the defendant) and one Keshav Gawali (witness to the agreement dated 17/04/1995).