1 45 sa 608.04.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2004 AND SECOND APPEAL NO.563 OF 2004 Shri Bhimrao Ranoji Sutar ..Appellant. Vs. Annappa Tukaram Chavan deceased, L.Rs. Pandurang & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Amit M.Shete for appellant. Mr.R.P.Walvekar for respondents. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 13/01/2011. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for parties. 2 Both these second appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court dated 9th December, 2003. 3 A few facts of the matter are as under: Second Appeal No.608 of 2004 is filed by original plaintiff being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the learned 8th Ad hoc Additional 2 45 sa 608.04.doc District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 1999, Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 1999 arising out of judgment and decree dated 1st January, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurundwad in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996. 4 The appellant Bhimrao Ranoji Sutar original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurundwad for declaration, injunction and specific performance of contract. 5 The appellant Bhimrao in his Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996 contended that the respondents purchased the suit property for consideration of Rs.600/- from original owner. He used to help the respondent. The respondent-original defendant no.1 was allowed to reside on half portion of western side of the suit property. Thereafter, the appellant constructed hut in the suit property. After some time, he constructed permanent house by stone and mud in the suit property. He paid Rs.1,500/- to respondent in the year 1974-75 as the respondent was in need of money. Thereafter, the price of the suit property was fixed at Rs.2,000/- and he again paid Rs.500/- to the respondent-original defendant no.1 but the sale deed was not executed. In the meanwhile, the appellant took electricity connection in the suit 3 45 sa 608.04.doc property in the year 1980-81 and he was paying the electricity charges. As the respondent agreed to sale the entire property for sum of Rs.2,000/-, he paid the entire consideration to the respondent but he refused to execute the sale deed. As the appellant was in possession of the suit property, he filed Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996 for declaration, injunction and for specific performance. 6 In Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996 respondents-original defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement. They denied all the material averments made by the appellant in the plaint. Respondents contended that original defendant no.1 purchased the suit property on 24th April, 1961 for the consideration of Rs.600/- and since then they were in possession. Original defendant no.1’s name was also mutated on the city survey record. As the appellant had no land at village Kurundwad, respondent-original defendant no.1 allowed the appellant without any consideration as licencee only to reside in a suit property in the year 1981. The appellant was in possession of only 2730 square feet land as licencee. Respondents denied that the appellants constructed of permanent house on the suit site. The respondents denied the receipt of any consideration i.e. sum of Rs.2,000/- from the appellant. 4 45 sa 608.04.doc 7 Considering the submissions made by both the parties in trial court, the trial court partly decreed the suit preferred by the appellant to the extent that respondents-original defendants were restrained from obstructing possession of the appellant over the suit property of western side to the extent of 1/4th area of C.S.No.1487 till the respondents/original defendants obtains possession of the suit property by due process of law. 8 In the meanwhile, the respondent herein above Annappa Tukaram Chavan also filed Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurundwad for recovery of possession of the suit site. The respondent i.e. plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997 contended that he purchased the suit property C.S.No.1487 on 24th April, 1961 for consideration of Rs.600/-. After purchasing of the suit property, he applied to the revenue department and his name was mutated as owner of the suit property in the revenue record. He constructed big house on eastern side of the C.S.No.1487 in the year 1970 and kept his fire wood, agricultural instruments and tied animals on western side. As the appellant (defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997) was in need of some land for residence, he gave suit property to the appellant as licencee and the appellant was residing as gratuitous licencee there. 5 45 sa 608.04.doc 9 The Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurundwad by its judgment and decree dated 1st January, 1999 held that respondent (plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997) was owner of the suit property but dismissed the suit on the ground that appellant herein above spent huge amount on construction of his house and he was in settled possession. 10 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by trial courts, respondent (original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997) preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 1999 and Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 1999 (defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 1996). 11 All these, Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 1999, Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 1999 and Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 1999 were heard by the learned 8th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Kolhapur and passed common judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2003. The lower appellate court in para 8 recorded that appellant-original plaintiff Bhimrao Ranoji Sutar did not press his Regular Civil Appeal no.66 of 1999. 12 Heard both the sides at length. 6 45 sa 608.04.doc 13 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no substantial legal question in these appeals. Admittedly, the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997 is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant being gratuitous licencee and having committed breach of the licence has no right to continue in possession of the suit premises. 14 There being no legal question involved in these appeals, they are dismissed at the stage of admission. 15 No order as to costs. (K.K.Tated, J.)