1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2010 Along with Civil Application No.1147 of 2010 Shri Ravan Maruti Kumbhar.. Appellant. Vs. Shri Vithal Dinkar Jadhav .. Respondents. Mr. V.S.Talkute, for the appellant. Mr.Vishwajeet Mohite i/b M/s YKS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 15/10/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 17.6.2010 rendered by the Principal District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.326 of 2007, by which the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 31.8.2007 has been allowed. The respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit for possession, being the owner of the suit property. 3. Mr Talkute, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the suit property was given to one Gore on condition of impartibility by the Collector vide order dated 19.2.1934. The T 2 plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Gore. He further submitted that since the land was alloted to Gore by the Government on the condition of impartibility, there was a bar for alienation, and that permission of the collector was required for alienating the said land and since it was not obtained, the transaction between Gore and the plaintiff was invalid and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim possession of the suit property. The appellant-defendant has not stated as to in what capacity he is claiming right over the suit property. Insofar as impartibility is concerned, the appellate court has considered the said aspect in proper perspective and has rejected the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant by making following observations: “He has submitted that it includes probably its disposal and/or alienation. At the outset, that submission, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. The word “impartibility” connotes indivisibility, that means cannot be partitioned or divided. No other clog was created in the said deed and that itself is sufficient to hold that when the occupancy rights were given to concern Gore and when such Gore was not prevailed by the order from alienating the land, then only because of the word of impartibility, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has derived the defective title. The learned Judge appears to have been swayed away by the use of the word “impartibility” and it was presumed that it includes alienation of the land and despite that when the land was alienated, that was the cause to hold that the plaintiff has not derived perfect title. One cannot endorse such observation, therefore, in view of the dictionary meaning of the word “impartibility” one 3 has to disagree with the submission of Mr Pawar. Apart from that let us assume that it includes clog or disposal of property, yet I fail to understand as to how the defendant who is the wrong doer and a stranger can take advantage of it. It is for the Government to raise an objection on account of disposal of the property. Moreover, as per the settled law, even if there is bar for alienation and permission of the Collector is required for disposing of the property, yet as per Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as well as the then Bombay Code, the permission can be accorded and the transaction can be rectified by levying the penalty. When this is the position, then the defendant cannot capitalize the nature of transaction.” I do not find any reason to take different view from the one taken by the learned Judge. Moreover, I do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned Judge while dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant. 4. Mr Talkute then invited my attention to the written statement and submitted that the claim of the appellant of ownership by adverse possession has not been considered by the courts below. It is pertinent to note that apart from mere averment in the written statement the defendant has not made any efforts to prove their claim or to lead any evidence in support of their claim of ownership by adverse possession. Moreover, the appellant has not raised this as a ground of appeal in the instant second appeal. In the circumstances, I find 4 no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is either involved or raised in the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)