1

RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

Presented on  : 07.08.2008
Registered on : 07.08.2008
Decided on     : 05.03.2020
Duration      :    Ys. Ms. Ds.
    11   05  28

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, CHANDRAPUR. 
(Presided over by Mr. V.D. Kedar, District Judge­2)

R.C.A.No.107/2008.       Exh.No.
CNR:MHCH01­000550­2008.
Natthu   Damaji   Bondhare,
Aged about 82 years, Occ. Cultivation,
R/o Vichoda (Bu.), Post. Padoli, Tah.
& Distt. Chandrapur. ...Appellant.
­Versus­
1. Smt.   Parvatabai   Baburao   Mandaokar,
Aged about 81 years, Occ. Nil,
2. Purushottam   Baburao   Mandaokar,
Aged   about   58   years,   Occ.   Service,
Defendants   No.1   &   2   R/o   Near
Shrikrishna   Talkies,   Bazar   Ward,
Chandrapur.
3. Sau.   Kiran   Nagaji   Hanwate,
Aged   about   54   years,   Occ.   Nil,   R/o
Babupeth   Ward,   Chandrapur,   Tah.   &
Distt. Chandrapur. 
4. Pravin Padvekar,
Aged   about   46   years,   Occ.   Business,
R/o Ekori Ward, Chandrapur, Tah. &
Distt. Chandrapur. 
5. Mohan   Sadashio   Dongre,
Aged   about   46   years,   Occ.   Business,
R/o   Jatpura   Ward,   Chandrapur,   Tah.
& Distt. Chandrapur.
 2
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

6. Yashpal   Devanand   Khobragade,

Aged about 39 years,  Occ. Cultivation,
7. Sagar   Devanand   Khobragade,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Cultivation,
Defendants   No.6   &   7   R/o   Jatpura
Ward,   Chandrapur,   Tah.   &   Distt.
Chandrapur.
9. Shamrao   Srawanji   Nikhare,
Aged about Major, Occ. Cultivation, 
10. Mina   Shamrao   Nikhare,
Aged   about   Major,   Oc.   Household,
Nos.   9   &   10   R/o   Ghotepar   Ward,
Pawani,Tah.Pawani, Distt.   Bhandara.
11. Udit Ratilal Vora, 
Aged   about   Major,   Occ.   Business,
R/o Shastrinagar, Chandrapur, Tah. &
Distt. Chandrapur.
12. Bharat Diwakar Ghosh,
Aged about Major, Occ. Business, R/o
Bengaly Camp, Chandrapur.  ...Respondents.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Appearances:
Shri A.U. Kullarwar, Ld. Advocate for the appellant.
Shri V.G. Mogre, Ld. Advocate for respondents no.1 to 7.
Shri R.M. Bhagwat, Ld. Advocate for respondents no.9 & 10.
Respondent no.11 proceeded ex­parte.
Shri R.P. Rangari, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.12. 
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
   
 J U D G M E N T
    (Delivered on 05.03.2020)
 3
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

  The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
being   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   decree   dated
07.07.2008,   passed   by   the   learned   2 nd  Joint   Civil   Judge
(Junior   Division),   Chandrapur,   in   R.C.S.   No.128/2004,
whereby   the   learned   trial   court   dismissed   the   suit   of   the
appellant for declaration and permanent injunction.

2.  The appellant is the original plaintiff. Respondents no.1
to   7   are   original   defendants   before   the   learned   trial   court.
Respondents no.9 to 12 joined during pendency of the appeal
as they purchased suit field. (It is to be noted that, due to
mistake instead of showing them as respondents no.8 to 11,
they being shown as respondents no.9 to 12   in the clause
title). Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original
nomenclature before the trial court.

3. In short, the facts which lead to the present appeal are
as under:

(i) The   plaintiff   has   filed   suit   for   declaration   and

permanent   injunction   against   defendants   no.1   to   5.
Defendants no.1 to 3 sold 2.83 H.R., out of suit property to
defendants no.6 and 7, hence they came to be added in the
suit vide order below Exh.48.
 4
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

(ii) It is contention of the plaintiff that, he is the owner of
field S.No.117, which is purchased by him vide  two separate
sale   deeds.   He   further   submits   that,   on   25.05.1968,   he
purchased 3 acres of land out of Old S.No.126/2 and 7 acres
of land out of Old S.No.128. On 01.07.1970, he purchased 2
acres of land out of S.No.126/2 and 6.50 acres of land out of
S.No.128. As such he purchased total 18.50 acres of land. The
defendant   no.1   is   the   mother   of   defendants   no.2   and   3.
Defendants no.4 and 5 are members of national political party
and having criminal mentality.

(iii) It is submitted that, the plaintiff had taken hand­loan
from deceased Baburao Mandaokar. Baburao compelled him
to   execute   the   sale   deed   for   security   of   the   loan   amount.
They   falsely   got   prepared   document   of   sale   deed   dated
08.08.1978,     in   their   favour.   Deceased   Baburao   had   given
threat   to   kill   the   plaintiff   and   taken   to   the   office   of   Sub
Registrar, Chandrapur for executing the sale deed. However,
Sub Registrar refused to register the  document stating that
the agricultural land is Occupancy Class II land. Thereafter,
the plaintiff returned to his village. He does not know how
defendant   no.1   and   her   husband   got   registered   said
document.   Therefore,   the   document   of   sale   deed   dated
08.08.1978, being sham and bogus is not binding on him.
(iv) It   is   further   submitted   that,   in   the   year   1983   the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board acquired some land out of
 5
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

S.No.117 and again acquired 0.12 R., land from the plaintiff.
As such plaintiff being owner remained in possession of 15.50
acres land of field S.No.117. The plaintiff is in peaceful and
continuous possession of suit property. It is further submitted
that, on 24.04.2004, defendants no.4 and 5 came on the field
of the plaintiff and threatened him of dire consequences. They
also threatened him to vacate the field S.No.117.   
(v) It is to be noted that, the plaintiff by way of amendment
submitted that, he got temporary injunction on 29.06.2004.
However   said  order   was  set   aside   by   the   District   Court   on
31.08.2004.   Therefore,   defendants   taking   advantage   of   the
same dispossessed him from the suit field in the summer of
2005.
The plaintiff by way of declaration sought the relief that
defendants have no right to obstruct his possession on the suit
field S.No.117 and the alleged sale deed dated 08.08.1978 is
not   binding   on   him.   The   plaintiff   by   way   of   relief   of
permanent injunction prayed for restraining defendants no.4
and 5 from obstructing his possession over the suit field.

3. Defendants   no.1     to   4   opposed   the   claim   by   filing

written   statement  vide  Exh.32. They denied all  the  adverse
allegations.   It   is   submitted   that,   the   field   S.No.117   is   sub­
divided   in   field   S.No.117/1,   admeasuring   0.55   Hrs.,   and
117.2, admeasuring 0.61 HRs. The Government acquired both
 6
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

survey numbers for Thermal Power Station, Durgapur. It is
further   submitted   that,   the   defendant   no.1   along   with   her
deceased   husband   purchased   2   acres   of   land   from   original
S.No.26/2 and 6.5 acres of land from Old S.No.28 i.e. total
8.5   acres   from   the   plaintiff  vide  registered  sale  deed  dated
08.08.1978,   for   the   valuable   consideration   of   Rs.7,811.50.
Since the day of execution of sale deed, they are in possession
of   the   same.   Out   of   these   8.50   acres   land,   the   State
Government acquired 0.61 R land for Thermal Power Station,
Durgapur. Thus, only 2.83 HRs of land remained with them.
After  demise  of  her  husband, the name  of defendants no.2
and   3   along   with   the   defendant   no.1   got   mutated   in   the
record   of   rights.   They   also   got   their   land   measured   from
T.I.L.R.   Office   in   presence   of   the   plaintiff.   They   sold   out
remaining   2.83   HRs.   land   to   defendants   no.6   and   7  vide
registered sale deed dated 05.08.2005. Now defendants no.6
and 7 are in possession of the same.
The defendant no.5 inspite of service of suit summons
failed to appear. Hence the matter proceeded ex­parte against
him.

4. Defendants   no.6   and   7   opposes   the   claim   by   filing

written   statement  vide  Exh.54.     It   is   their   contention   that,
they being absolute owner of the suit field are in possession of
the same.
 7
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

5. In view of rival contentions of the parties, the learned
trial   court   framed   issues  vide  Exh.36   on   03.01.2006.
Thereafter issues came to be recasted on 21.06.2008. Again
on 13.06.2008 additional issues came to be framed.

6. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as
(P.W.1)   below   Exh.58.   The   plaintiff   got   proved   sale   deed
dated   01.07.1970   at   Exh.63,   by   which   he   had   purchased
some   portion   of   suit   land   from   Udhao   Deotale,   notice
regarding   acquisition   of   land   dated   30.06.1984   at   Exh.64,
notice from Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.65, 7/12 extract
of field S.No.117/1 at Exhs.66 to 69 respectively, sale deed
dated 27.05.1968 at Exh.70 by which the plaintiff purchased
remaining portion of suit field from Piddurkar Brothers and
notice from Special Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.71. The
plaintiff also examined Prabhu Puse Ramteke as (PW2) below
Exh.78 and Balaji Mohan Latari as (PW3) below Exh.79. Both
these   witnesses   examined   by   the   plaintiff   to   prove   his
possession over suit field. The plaintiff filed evidence closing
pursis at Exh.81, 111 and 113 respectively. 

7. Defendants   in   support   of   their   defence   examined   the

defendant no.2 Purushottam Baburao Mandaokar as (DW1)
below   Exh.85.   Defendants   got   proved   documents   such   as
 8
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

mutation entries at Exhs.87 and 88 respectively, Hissa Form
at Exh.89, notice issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer
dated   05.02.1985   at   Exhs.90   and   91   respectively,   7/12
extracts   of   field   S.No.117/2   and   117/1   at   Exhs.92   to   100
respectively, revenue map at Exhs.101 and 102 respectively,
sale   deed   dated   10.08.1978   at   Exh.103,   sale   deed   dated
11.08.1978   at   Exh.104,   sale   deed   executed   in   favour   of
defendants no.6 and 7 on 05.08.2005 at Exh.106 and 7/12
extract   at   Exh.107.   Defendants   also   examined   Ambadas
Maroti   Jadhav   as   (DW2)   below   Exh.108.   Defendants   filed
evidence closing pursis at Exh.112.

8. Upon considering the pleading, oral and documentary
evidence and after hearing parties to the suit, the learned trial
court   dismissed   the   suit  vide  judgment   and   decree   dated
07.07.2008.   The   learned   trial   court   recorded   the   findings
that, the sale deed executed by the plaintiff on 08.08.1978 in
favour of the defendant no.1 and her husband is legal and
valid document and thus binding on the plaintiff. The learned
trial   court   further   recorded   the   finding   that,   the   plaintiff
failed to prove his possession over the suit field and as such
failed to prove that defendants are obstructing to his peaceful
possession   over   suit   field.     The   learned   trial   court   further
recorded   the   finding   that,   the   suit   is   hopelessly   barred   by
 9
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

limitation and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs
claimed.

9. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the same, preferred the
present appeal. It is to be noted that, my learned predecessor
in Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2008
passed by the learned trial court and remanded the matter to
the trial court  vide  order dated 05.10.2011 by holding that,
the learned trial court has not gone into the legality of the
sale   deed   considering   that   the   occupancy   was   Class   II
Occupancy and in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, the right to transfer Class II Occupancy
is restricted.
Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by my learned
predecessor   in   Court   on   05.10.2011,   defendants   have
preferred appeal against order No.2/2012, before the   High
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The
Hon’ble   High   Court   was   pleased   to   allow   the   appeal   of
defendants   and   set   aside   the   order   dated   05.10.2011.   The
Hon’ble   High   Court   remitted   back   the   matter   to   this   court
with   direction   to   decide   the   said   on   its   own   merits   in
accordance with law.

10. Thereafter, during pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff
moved   an   application   to   join   respondents   no.9   to   12   as   a
 10
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

party to the suit as they have purchased the suit field during
pendency of the appeal. Respondents no.9 and 10 purchased
1.31   HR   area   out   of   2.83   HR   of   field   S.No.117/2  vide
registered   sale   deed   dated   21.09.2010,   from   one   Anil
Ramteke,   who   is   not   party   to   the   suit   or   the   appeal.
Respondents no.11 and 12 purchased 1.52 H. R. land out of
2.83 H.R. land of field S.No.117/2.   

11. Heard the learned advocate Shri A.U. Kullarwar, for the
plaintiff, Shri V.G. Mogre, for defendants no.1 to 7, Shri R.M.
Bhagwat for newly added respondents no.9 and 10 and Shri
R.P. Rangari for newly added respondent no.12. Perused the
record.

12. The   learned   advocate   Shri   Kullarwar   for   the   plaintiff

argued that, the learned trial court failed to consider the fact
that the suit property is of Occupancy Class II and as such in
view of section 29 of the M.L.R. Code there is restriction on
transfer   of   Occupancy   Class   II   land.   Hence,   the   sale   deed
dated 08.08.1978 is not legal and valid document thus not
binding on the plaintiff. It is further argued that, to decide
this aspect the matter is required to be remanded to the trial
court.
 11
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

13. The learned advocate further argued that, the learned
trial   court   committed   an   error   while   holding   that,   the   sale
deed   dated   08.08.1978   is   a   valid   and   legal   document   and
thus binding on the plaintiff. The learned trial court wrongly
held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit field. The
learned trial court committed an error while holding that the
suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, the impugned
judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the trial court to decide afresh.

14. The   learned   advocate   Shri   Mogre,   Shri   Bhagwat   and

Shri Rangari supported the judgment and decree passed by
the   learned   trial   court.   They   argued   that   the   learned   trial
court   rightly   appreciated   the   pleadings  as   well   as  oral   and
documentary   evidence   and   passed   legal   and   proper   order.
Therefore, no interference warranted with the same. Hence,
the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

15. Following points arise for my determination to which I
answered with findings thereon as under:
Points: Findings:
1. Does the plaintiff proved that he is
in possession of suit field? No.
2. Does   the   plaintiff   prove   that   the
document   of   sale   deed   dated No.
08.08.1978 being sham and bogus is
not binding on him? 
 12
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

3. Does   the   plaintiff   prove   that

defendants   obstructing   to   his No.
possession?
4. Whether   the   suit   is   barred   by
limitation? Yes.
5. Is   plaintiff   entitled   for   relief   of
declaration   and   permanent No.
injunction as claimed? 
6. Whether   judgment   and   decree
passed   by   the   learned   trial   court No.
called for any interference?
7. What order? As per final order.

Reasons:
As to Point no.1:
16. The plaintiff Nathhu examined himself and deposed as
per   the   contents   of   the   plaint.   Hence,   I   do   not   want   to
reproduce the same to avoid repetition. The plaintiff to prove
his possession over the suit field examined Prabhu (PW2) and
Balaji   (PW3).   The   plaintiff  and his  witnesses deposed  that,
the plaintiff is in possession of the suit field.
It   is   to   be   noted   that,   the   plaintiff   during   his   cross­
examination   admitted   that   he     filed   the   suit   initially   for
possession. The plaintiff’s witnesses Prabhu (PW2) and Balaji
(PW3)  having  no  knowledge  about the  factual situation on
the spot. 

17. It is to be noted that, during pendency of the suit the
plaintiff filed an application for amendment vide Exh.37 and
 13
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

pleaded   that   he   got   temporary   injunction   on   29.06.2004.

However   said   order   was   set   aside   by   the   District   Court,
Chandrapur  vide  order   dated   31.08.2004.   Thereafter
defendants taking advantage of said order dispossessed him
from   the   suit   field  in  the  summer  of   2005.  He   carried  out
amendment   to   that   effect   vide   Para   No.2­A   in   the   plaint.
Surprisingly   the   plaintiff   has   not   prayed   for   relief   of
possession. No report of the incident given to the police. Even
his   witness   or   the   plaintiff   did   not   say   anything   in   their
depositions   about   the   same.   Now   once   plaintiff   himself
pleaded   that   he   was   dispossessed   in   the   summer   of   2005,
then it is for the plaintiff to show as to how and when he
regain   possession  of the  suit  field. No  evidence  led to  that
effect by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff totally failed to
prove his possession over the suit field.  Hence my answer to
point no.1 is in negative.

As to points no.2 to 5: 
18. All these points are arising out of same set of evidence,
hence taken for discussion together.
It is main contention of the plaintiff that, he obtained
hand­loan  from  the  husband of the  defendant no.1 namely
Baburao. Therefore, Baburao pressurised him to execute sale
deed   of   some   portion   of   his   field   property   in   lieu   of   the
security  of the  loan  amount. It  is further contention of the
 14
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

plaintiff that, the defendant no.1 and her husband themselves
prepared document of sale deed and under threat had taken
him to the Sub Registrar Office. However,  the Sub Registrar
refused   to   execute   the   sale   deed   as   the   land   falls   within
Occupancy Class II. Thereafter he returned to his home. He
does not know how the document was   got executed by the
defendant no.1 and her husband.
It   is   to   be   noted   that,   during   cross­examination,   the
plaintiff   admitted   that   on   28.09.1977,   he   executed   an
agreement to sell (Exh.72) in favour of the husband of the
defendant no.1. He further admits that, the sale amount was
fixed   at   Rs.17,000/­.   He   had   received   Rs.2,500/­   as   an
earnest amount and remaining Rs.1500/­ to be given at the
time   of   Diwali.   On   03.05.1978,   he   received   Rs.1500/­.   He
does not know whether Babarao Jadhav and Gawande were
present as witnesses over the document. He does not know
whether Chaure was Scribe of the said document. However,
one   Tukaram   was   present   at   that   time.   He   had   received
Rs.4,000/­   out   of   Rs.7881/­   as   mentioned   in   Exh.72     i.e.
agreement   to   sell.   He   further   admits   that   Surveyor
Kumbhalkar came to measure the suit field. The measurement
map is at Exh.73. He also admits the receipt of notice issued
to   defendants   on   05.02.1985   for   getting   compensation
regarding the suit field. He does not know whether defendant
received compensation regarding   0.61 R., area out of field
 15
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

S.No.117/2. He further admits that when he came to know in
the year 1986 about mutation in favour of the defendant no.1
and   her   husband,   he   raised   the   objection.   He   having   said
documents with him, however he did not file said documents
on   the   record.   Defendants   no.1   and   her   husband   sold   suit
field  to  defendants no.6 and 7 and mutation  took place  in
their name. 

19. Now in view of above admissions given by the plaintiff,
it is seen that previously an agreement to sell (Exh.72) got
executed in between the plaintiff and Baburao on 28.09.1977.
At   that   time   the   plaintiff   received   earnest   amount   of
Rs.2,500/­   and  thereafter   again   on   03.05.1978  he   received
Rs.1500/­.   The   plaintiff suppressed all these  facts from the
Court.   It   is   to   be   noted   that,   the   sale   deed   came   to   be
executed   on   08.08.1978.   Therefore,   I   do   not   find   any
substance in the contention of the plaintiff that it is hand­loan
transaction. Nothing on record to show that the plaintiff at
any point of time issued notice to the defendant no.1 and her
husband thereby asked them to receive the amount of hand­
loan from him. Nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiff
repaid entire amount of hand­loan  to the defendant no.1 and
her   husband.   Thus,   in   absence   of   cogent   evidence   mere
submissions in air having no force. The entire story putforth
by the plaintiff found to be afterthought and concocted. 
 16
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

20. Defendants examined Purushottam (DW1). He deposed
as per the contents of the written statement. It is to be noted
that nothing material brought in his cross­examination. This
witness   specifically   deposed   regarding   the   genuine
transaction in between the plaintiff and his parents.
Defendants   have   examined   Ambadas   (DW2)   to   prove
the   execution   of   sale   deed   dated   08.08.1978.   He   fully
supported to the case of defendants. He deposed that as to
how the sale deed dated 08.08.1978, came to be executed. He
deposed   that   though   the   document   was   written   on
08.08.1978, but it was registered on 10.08.1978 before the
Sub Registrar Office, Chandrapur. At that time Baburao paid
entire amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff put his signature
in the Registrar Office in his presence. It is to be noted that
nothing material brought during his cross­examination. This
witness did not budge single inch and stick up to his version.
Therefore,   defendants   duly   proved   the   due   execution   of
registered sale deed dated 08.08.1978, in their favour. Hence
the sale deed dated 08.08.1978 found to be legal and valid
document.

21. It is  to  be noted that the defendant admitted that he

having   knowledge   in   the   year   1986   about   the   mutation   in
favour of the defendant no.1 and her husband. He also stated
that   he   raised   the   objection   about   the   same.   However,   he
 17
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

does   not   file   said   documents   though   possessing   the   same.

Hence,  an  adverse  inference came to be  drawn  against the
plaintiff for withholding important documents, as he admitted
same to be in his possession. The plaintiff also admitted that,
he   knew   about   the   notice   dated   05.02.1985   issued   to
defendants regarding compensation about the suit field. The
plaintiff admits about the execution of sale deed executed in
the year 1978. Inspite of all these facts, the plaintiff has filed
the   suit   on   29.04.2004,   i.e.   after   26   years.   The   suit   for
declaration is to be filed within three years from the accrual
of cause of action which as per the evidence on record shows
occurred in the year 1978 itself. The plaintiff failed to prove
his possession over suit field. Hence, question of seeking relief
of   permanent   injunction   does   not   arise.   Hence,   the   suit   is
hopelessly barred by limitation.

22. It is another contention of the plaintiff that, as the suit
field falls within Occupancy Class II hence there is restriction
for its transfer in view of section 29 of the M.L.R. Code. There
is no pleading in that regard. Even otherwise upon perusal of
the sale deed dated 01.07.1970 and 27.05.1968 it reveals that
the plaintiff himself purchased Occupancy Class II land from
Deotale   and   Pidurkar   Brothers   vide   Exhs.63   and   70
respectively. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he received
suit field from the Government on lease or as a grant. Thus,
 18
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

in my view there is no force in the submission of the plaintiff
in this regard. It is to be noted that thereafter also suit field
was sold to defendants no.6 to 12 from time to time. Thus,
plaintiff failed to prove that the document of sale deed dated
08.08.1978 being sham and bogus is not binding on him. As I
have   already   discussed   the   plaintiff   failed   to   prove   his
possession over suit field hence question of obstruction to his
possession   at   the   hands   of   defendants   does   not   arise.
Therefore   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   for   any   reliefs   claimed.
Hence, my answer to points no.2, 3 and 5 are in negative and
point no.4 is in affirmative.

As to point no.6:
23. The   learned   trial   court   rightly   appreciated   the
pleadings,   oral   and   documentary   evidence   and   recorded
correct findings regarding the fact that the plaintiff failed to
prove   his   possession   over   suit   field,   the   plaintiff   failed   to
prove that the sale deed dated 08.08.1978 being sham and
bogus is not binding on him. The learned trial court rightly
held that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial
court. Hence, my answer to point no.6 is in negative.
 19
RCA  No.107/2008
Nathhu vs. Parwatabai & ors 

As to point no.7:
24. In view of above discussion, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

1. The suit is dismissed with cost.
2. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
3. R. & Ps., be sent to the learned trial court.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
   Virendra Digitally signed by
Virendra Dattuji
Dattuji Kedar
Date: 2020.03.06
Kedar 16:52:08 +0530

(V.D. Kedar)
       District Judge­2,
Date  :  05.03.2020.         Chandrapur.