( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. S. A. NO.124/2008 Tukaram Shenfad Bhagwat -vs- Dilip Jagdeo Ugale. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 19/11/2008 Heard Shri Darda, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the present appellant/ defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff/ respondent that he had purchased the suit property from Ramdas Bhorkade for a consideration of Rs.88,000/- on 18/02/2002. It is further his case that he was put in possession of the suit property by Ramdas Bhorkade on the date of registration of sale deed. The sale deed was executed in ( 2 ) favour of the plaintiff/respondent. It is further case of the plaintiff that after the sale deed was executed, the defendant/appellant came to the field and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and, therefore, matter was reported to the Police, and ultimately the suit came to be filed. The defendant resisted the suit and mainly contended that the vendor of the plaintiff is his father-in-law and his father-in- law had agreed to sell the suit property to him. He contended that for the last 11 years the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was paid to his father-in-law towards consideration of the field and since then he has been himself cultivating the suit property. The next contention is that his father-in-law Ramdas was therefore not in possession of the suit property, but he was in continuous possession of the suit property. Further, his contention is that he has been dispossessed by the plaintiff under the garb of protecting his possession under order of Court. The learned Judges of the courts below found that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property on the date of execution of sale deed. The trial Court decreed the suit and the Appellate Court ( 3 ) concurred with the findings. Shri Darda, learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that the main grievance of the defendant is that the defendant was actually in possession of the suit property and he had been dispossessed under the garb of the order passed by the trial Court. He submits that the witnesses admit that the defendant was dispossessed and plaintiff was put in possession. After having gone through the judgments of the Courts below, it appears that the trial Court had granted Police aid and injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff's possession was directed to be protected. The Court had prima facie held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and, hence, Court had granted Police protection. The Trial Court had considered all the facts and had found that the plaintiff was in possession of suit property and particularly for that reason Trial Court seems to have granted protection to the plaintiff. It cannot, therefore, be said even at this stage that the Courts below have wrongly interpreted the fact that the possession was protected and that the contention of the defendant that he ( 4 ) was dispossessed and plaintiff was put in possession under that garb was not correct. Shri Darda, the learned counsel, then contended that the crop statements were in the name of the defendant and, therefore, that fact should have been given weightage and that would go to show that the plaintiff was not in possession. The submission does not appear to me to be correct. The judgment of the trial Court goes to show that it was the defendant who applied to the Tahsildar for correction of the crops statement in the year 2003 itself. The fact that the necessity of making such application for correction of the crops statement was felt by the defendant clearly suggest that the crops statements were in the name of father- in-law of the defendant i.e. the plaintiff's vendor. In these circumstances, these entries in the crops statement are certainly supported by the recitals in the sale deed that the possession was with the vendor and that he delivered it to the plaintiff. The Courts below rightly held that the 7/12 extracts have a presumptive value and mere oral evidence could not be enough to rebut that presumption. On the other hand, it must be said that the Courts below have rightly ( 5 ) appreciated the evidence. The vendor of the plaintiff has been examined and he has stated that the possession has been delivered by him to the plaintiff. Thus, he supports the contents of the sale deed and the entries in the record of rights. This statement of Ramdas, therefore, corroborates all the entries in the record of rights. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to how these findings of the trial Court could be said to be perverse particularly when they are supported by the documentary evidence. Those are pure finding of facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE gsk