( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.116 OF 1990 Dhansingh s/o Venkati Rathod, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dongaon, Tq & Dist. Nanded. .. Appellant Versus Mahadu s/o Sayaji Hamand, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dongaon, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. .. Respondent ... Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Choudhari, Advocate for sole respondent. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 06.05.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocates for both sides. 2. This second appeal filed by the original defendant against whom the decree for declaration of ownership and possession has been passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in R.C.S. No.642/1982 decided on 15-12-1983; which judgment and the decree is further ( 2 ) confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Nanded in R.C.A. No.19/1984 decided on 26-101989. 3. Briefly stated the case of the respondent - plaintiff is that the plaintiff's father Yesaji somewhere in the year 1357 F purchased suit plot admeasuring 36'x45' situated at Dongaon, Taluka and District Nanded for Rs.200/-. The document was executed, but the sale deed was not registered. The sale deed was on the stamp paper of Rs.2/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff's father and after his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of suit plot and they were using same plot for storing agricultural implements by raising temporary sheds and for manure pits. It is further stated that in about 1973, the defendant who was the resident of Chikal Tanda, had purchased a land at village Dongaon. He wanted to reside at Dongaon and therefore, the plaintiff allowed him to erect a shed and reside in the plot in question. Thus, as a licensee, the defendant - appellant has been residing in the suit plot. It is further stated that as the defendant - appellant started distilling illicit liquor in the suit plot, inhabitants in the locality made complaints. Ultimately, the plaintiff asked the defendant to ( 3 ) vacate the plot. There was quarrel. Ultimately, the suit filed for declaration of title and possession. 4. The defendant came with a case that he has been owner of the suit property since beginning. The sale deed produced by the plaintiff is not registered and therefore, is not admissible in evidence. The boundaries in the sale deed and the suit as described in the plaint are different. It is further stated that the defendant has become owner by adverse possession, as he has been in possession of the suit plot for more than 12 years. 5. Both, the trial Court and the Appellate Court considered the evidence and decreed the suit, which decrees are under challenge in this second appeal. 6. As per order passed at the time of admission of the second appeal on 14-11-1990, the substantial questions of law involved in this case are incorporated ground Nos. 12 to 15. Those are as follows : (12) When the plaintiff claimed relief in respect of the suit property as ( 4 ) per his pleadings in the claim clause, whether the Court below can travel beyond the pleading and grant such relief i.e. declaring the plaintiff as owner of the land described in alleged unregistered sale deed exhibit-37? (13) When the evidence of plaintiff does not tally with the documentary evidence i.e. about the description of the property, under such circumstances, whether a relief of declaration and possession can be granted in favour of plaintiff? (14) In view of the fact that the defendant is in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years, under such circumstances, whether adverse possession of the defendant can be denied? (15) That the plaintiff claimed his title on the basis of document exhibit 37 i.e. unregistered sale deed. Whether such unregistered document can be taken into consideration in the evidence in view of the provisions of section 17 read with section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and whether relief of declaration and possession can be given to the plaintiff on the basis of such document. The question of interpretation of alleged document exhibit 37 is a substantial question of law. 7. In this case, we get admissions of appellant Dhansingh which are referred in detail in Para-9 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Appellant Dhansingh was examined on oath at Exhibit-39 and in the cross examination, he admitted that there was quarrel between him and the respondent and ( 5 ) other persons on account of suit plot. He also stated that he had filed criminal complaint against the plaintiff and others. He also stated that his statement was recorded in the criminal case. He denied the contents of the complaint in his deposition dated 29-12-1981 recorded in C.C. No.30/82. He even denied that he had lodged complaint. The certified copy of the deposition in the Court is at Exhibit-46. If we consider documents at Exhibit-45 and 46,it is clear that Exhibit-45 is a criminal complaint lodged by present appellant Dhansingh on 29-12-1981 against the present respondent and others. It is alleged in the complaint that he had come to reside at Dongaon 7-8 years before lodging the complaint. Since then he was residing in the plot of Mahadu Sayaji by constructed a shed therein. He was residing with his wife and children. He then proceeded to describe the incident dated 29-12-1981 wherein the Police Patil had called the present appellant, so also respondent and other persons. There was quarrel in the meeting. Subsequently, the members of the family of the appellant were assaulted with axe and other weapons and therefore, the complaint was lodged. Exhibit-46 is the certified copy of the statement of present appellant Dhansingh recorded by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior ( 6 ) Division, Nanded in C.C. NO.30/82 on 07-10-82 and therein the complaint Exhibit-45 was proved to be correct and as given by the present appellant. So, it is very clear from these documents that one year before lodging the suit on 29-12-1981 appellant Dhansingh stated before the police that he had come to reside at Dongaon 7-8 years before and since then he had been residing in the plot of the present respondent - plaintiff, with his wife and children. Absolutely, there was no reason to the appellant to give false information in the complaint lodged by him against the respondent. This admission given before filing of the suit is not at all explained in his deposition by appellant Dhansingh. 8. In this case, the appellant has also stated in his cross examination that he had purchased the land from respondent Mahadu 20 years. For 5 years respondent Mahadu was in possession and mutation was also in the name of Mahadu. 9. In this case, though title of the respondent has originated out of unregistered sale deed, the sale deed was executed as back as in 1946 and as admitted by the appellant Dhansingh in his deposition the complaint before the police, ( 7 ) he came to reside 7-8 years before 1981. That proves the case of license made out by the respondent. From 1946 to 1973 the respondent was in possession of the suit property as a owner. The unregistered sale deed in his favour was not challenged by any one at any time. As per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the respondent can be said to have perfected his title over the suit plot. In this view, I am fortified by ratio laid down in The Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and others [ A.I.R. (38) 1951 S.C. 469 ] and in Lachhmi Narain and another vs. Kalyan and another ( A.I.R. 1960 Rajasthan 1 ). 10. For passing the decree, detail reasons are given by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Entire evidence is discussed. View taken by the Courts below is reasonable and probable. Particularly admissions in the complaint to police given by appellant Dhansingh and referred to above go a long way. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAY10/sa116.90