SMT. BAYANABAI KAWAREversusRAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE

                         [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1029


                    SM~BAYANABAIKAWARE                                    A
                                    v.

                RAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE

                    (Civil Appeal No.19625 of 2017)
                                                                          B
                         NOVEMBER23,2017
    [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
          Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - si.~ 54and123 - Possession
· _and mesne profits - Claim of, on basis of sale deed - Respondent- c
  plaintiff purchased the suit land from a Housing Co-operative
   Society vide registered Sale deed and was, accordingly, placed in
  possession of the suit land by the Society - After few years, appellant
   encroached upon the suit land and erected a 'kacha' hut - '
   Respondent filed suit against appellant claiming possession and
   mesne profits in relation to the suit land;... Trial Court and the First D
   Appellate Court held that since the sale deed was hot properly
   proved, the respondent's suit was dismissed - High Court held that
   the respondent proved the sale deed as required in law and, therefore, ·
   was entitled to claim decree for possession on the basis of sale
   deed as owner against the appellant - On appeal, held: Sale deed E
   was duly proved by ihe respondent and rightly relied 011 by the
   High Court for passing a decree of possession against the appellant
   - It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed
   does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires·
   at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its execution as per
   s.123 of the Transfer of Property Act, and Secondly, s.68 of the F
   Evidence Act, which deals with the examination of the attesting
   witness to prove the execution of the document, does not. apply to
   sale deed, which is governed by s.54 of the Transfer of Property
   Act-Appellant (defendant) did not dispute the respondent's vendor's
   (Housing Society) title - Further, respondent entered in witness box G
   and proved its execution and further did not raise any objection
   when the sale deed was being exhibited in evidence - In light of
   these admitted facts, respondent had a better title of suit land as
    against the appellant, who had no title to the suit land - Evidence
    Act, 1872 - s. 68.                                          .
                                                                            H
                                     1029
)()30            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 11 S.C.R.


 A            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 The High Court held that the sale deed was
        duly proved as required in law and accordingly passed the
        decree for p~ssession against the appellant in relation to
        the suit land. The reasoning of the High Court is correct. The
 B      respondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore,
        rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit
        land on the strength of the sale deed against the appellant. [Paras
        18 and 19] [1034-C-D]
         1.2 It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the
 c sale deed does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed,
   which requires at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its
   execution as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act,
   1882; and Secondly, Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which
   deals with the examination of the attesting witness to prove the
   execution of the document, does not apply to sale deed, which is
 D governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. [Para 20]
   [1034-E-F]
              2. Further, the appellant (defendant) in this case did not
        dispute the respondent's vendor's (Housing Society) title. On
        the other hand, she, in clear terms, admitted their title in her
 E      written statement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent
        entered in witness box and proved its execution and further did
        not raise any objection when the sale deed was being exhibited
        in evidence and indeed, rightly for want of any legal basis. [Para
        21] [1034-G]
 F       3. In the light of these admitted facts, the sale deed in
   question was duly proved by the respondent and was, therefore,
   rightly relied on by the High Court for passing a decree of
   possession against the appellant. It was a clear case where the
   respondent had a better title of the suit land as against the
 G appellant, who had no title to the suit land. All that the appellant
   had was a plea of adverse possession which was not held proved.
   [Para 22] [1034-H; 1035-A]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 19625
        of2017.
 H
  SMT. BAYANABAI KAWARE v. RAJENDRA S/o BABURAO                               1031
                     DHOTE

       From the fina!Judgment and Order dated 11-10-2012/12-10-2012           A
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Second
Appeal No.304of 1997.
      Anshuman Singh, Satyajit Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Ad vs for
the Appellant.
       Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pantle, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs          B
for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is filed by the defendant against the final judgment    C
and order dated 11/12.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Second Appeal No.304/1997
whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by
the respondent herein and reversed the judgment/decree dated 26.08.1996
passed by the 3n1 Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal   D
No.152/1989 which arose out of judgment/decree dated 31.01.1989
passed by 3n1 Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil
Suit No.1210/1985, which had dismissed the respondent's civil suit.
      3. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the
appeal, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.
                                                                              E
       4. The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the
plaintiff in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
        5. The dispute relates to plot No.12 of field No.13/3, P. H. 44
situated in Mouza Parsodi Tahsil, District Nagpur admeasuring 1625
sq.ft. (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land").                           F
       6. The suit land originally belonged to one Housing Co-Operative
Society called - "Subhash Nagar Gruba Nirman Sahakari Sanstha
Limited, Nagpur" (hereinafter referred to as "Society"). The respondent
purchased the suit land from the Society vide registered sale deed dated
29. 12.1981 and was, according! y, placed in possession ofthe suit land by     G
the Society.
       7. In March 1985, it was noticed by the respondent that the
appellant had encroached upon the suit land owned by him and erected
a kacha hut on one portion of the suit land without any authority. This
led the respondent to serve legal notice dated 22.04.1985 on the appellant    H
1032            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] ll S.C.R.


 A asking her to remove the hut, which was illegally erected by her on the
   suit land. Since the appellant did not remove the hut, the respondent
   filed a suit being Civil Suit No.1210/85 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior
   Division, Nagpur against the appellant claiming possession and mesne
   profits in relation to the suit land.
 B         8. The suit was founded essentially on the allegation, inter alia,
   that the respondent is the owner of the suit land having purchased the
   same from the Society by registered sale deed dated 29.12. I 981(Ex.P-
   31 ). It was alleged that the respondent was placed in possession of the
   suit land pursuant to the sale deed. It was alleged that the appellant, in
 C March 1985, un-authorisedly entered into the suit land and erected one
   hut on one portion of the suit land and hence, the suit is filed by the
   respondent seeking possession of the suit land and also claiming the
   mesne profits from the appellant.
          9. The appellant filed written statement and denied the
   respondent's claim. According to her, the suit land was allotted to one
 D Dhondiba Lodhi by the Society, who then constructed his house on the
   land and on his death, his wife - Hirabai became its owner. It was then
   averred that Hirabai entered into an agreement with the appellant on
   22.05 .1972 to sell the suit land and pursuant to the agreement, was placed
   in possession of the suit land. It was averred that since then the appellant
 E continued to remain in possession of the suit land without any interruption
   from anyone and has accordingly acquired ownership of the suit land by
   virtue of she being in adverse possession of the suit land. This, in
   substance, was her defense.
             I 0. The Trial Court framed the issues and parties adduced their
 F evidence. By judgment/decree dated 31.01.1989, the Trial Court
   dismissed the respondent's suit. It was held that, firstly, the respondent
   failed to prove the sale deed (Ex.P-31) inasmuch as the sale deed had
   some kind of discrepancies and also no attesting witness was examined;
   secondly, the appellant was in possession of the suit land since 1972 and
   hence perfected her title over it by adverse possession; thirdly, the dispute,
 G which is the subject-matter of civil suit, pertained to the business of the
   Society and hence covered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
   Societies Act (in short "the Act") and is, accordingly, barred under Section
   163(1) of the Act.
              11. The respondent, felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial
 H     Court, filed First Appeal before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur
   SMT. BAYANABAI KAWARE v. RAJENDRA S/o BABURAO                               1033
          DHOTE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

  being Regular Civil Appeal No.152 of 1989. The Appellate Court, by A
  judgment dated 26.08.1996, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
  judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court reversed
  the two findings of the Trial Court. One was in relation to the bar contained
  in Section 91 of the Act and the other relating to the plea of adverse
  possession. In other words, the Appellate Court reversed the two findings
  of the Tri(ll Court and held that, firstly, the bar contained in Section 91 of B
  the Act does not hit the civil suit and hence maintainable in Civil Court
  and secondly, the appellant (defendant) failed to.prove her adverse
  possession-0ver the suit land and hence cannot be declared the owner of
  the suit land on the strength of her alleged adverse possession over it.
  However, since the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial C
  Court insofar as it pertained to not properly proving the sale deed dated
   29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31), the suit was dismissed. In other words, the
· Appellate Court also held that the respondent (plaintiff) was not able to
  prove the sale deed dated 29 .12.1981 in accordance with law and hence
   no decree could be passed in respondent's favour irt relation to the suit D
   land on the strength of such unproved sale deed.
         12. Felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the
 respondent (plaintiff) filed Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code
 of Ci vii Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") in
 the High Court (Nagpur Bench). The High Court framed the following
                                                                                E
 question oflaw:
        "Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff appellant to
        examine his vendor and attesting witnesses to prove his
        title to the suit propertyJn a suit for recove_ry of possession
        against the encroacher when there is a registered sale deed
        executed by his vendor in his favour?"                                  F

        13. The appellant (defendant), however, did not file any cross
 objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code to challenge the adverse
 findings recorded by the First Appellate Court and, therefore, those
 findings attained finality.
                                                                                G
        14 .. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second
 Appeal and while setting aside of the judgments/decrees of the two
 courts below decreed the appellant's suit. The High Court held thlit the
 respondent has proved the sale deed as required in iaw and, therefore,
 he was entHled to claim decree for possession on the basis of the sale
 deed (Ex.P-31) as an owner against the appellant. Felt aggrieved, the          H
1034             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 11 S.C.R.


 A defendant filed the present appeal by way of special leave against the
   judgment of the High Court before this Court.
            15. Heard Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
       and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel for the respondent.
              16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
 B     of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as, in our
       opinion, the High Court is right in its reasoning and its conclusion.
             17. As observed supra, the only question involved in the appeal
       before the High Court was whether the sale deed dated 29.12.1981
       (Ex.P-31) in relation to the suit land was duly proved by the respondent.
 c
               18. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that since
       the sale deed was not properly proved, the respondent's suit was dismissed
       whereas the High Court reversed the said finding and held that the sale .
       deed was duly proved as required in law and accordingly passed the
       decree for possession against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
 D
               19. We agree with the reasoning of the High Court. In our opinion
       also, the respondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore,
       rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit land on the
       strength of the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31) against the
       appellant.
 E
              20. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed
       does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires at
       least two attesting witnesses at the time of its execution as per Section
       123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and Secondly, Section 68 of
       the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the examination of the attesting
 F     witness to prove the execution of the document, does not apply to sale
       deed, which is governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
          21. It is not in dispute that the appellant (defendant) in this case
   did not dispute the respondent's vendor's (Housing Society) title. On
   the other hand, she, in clear terms, admitted their title in her written
 G statement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent entered in witness
   box and proved its execution and further did not raise any objection
   when the sale deed was being exhibited in evidence and indeed, rightly
   for want of any legal basis.
          22. In the light of these admitted facts, we.are of the view that the
 H sale deed dated 29.12.1981 was duly proved by the respondent and was,
  SMT. BAYANABAI KAWARE v. RAJENDRA S/o BABURAO                                 1035
         DHOTE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

therefore, rightly relied on by the High Court for passing a decree of          A
possession against the appellant. It was, in our opinion, a clear. case
where the respondent had a better title of the suit land as against the
appellant, who had no title to the suit land. All that the appellant had was
a plea of adverse possession which was not held proved.
      23. This being the only point involved in the case and the same           B
having been answered .against the appellant, we find no merit in the
appeal. Jhe appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.


Ankit Gyan                                                  Appeal dismissed.