MRS ANJANABAI N GORE. vs MRS MANJULABAI B GAIKWAD.

Judgment text excerpt

2-SA-326-1994.doc MJ Jadhav IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 326 OF 1994 Mrs. Anjanabai Rajaram Gore, … Appellant Resident of : Sangammer, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. Vs. Mrs. Manjulabai Baban Gaikwad, … Respondent Digitally Resident of : Sangammer, signed by MANGALTAI MANGALTAI JAYWANT JAYWANT JADHAV JADHAV Date: Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. 2025.11.03 19:21:15 +0530 Mr. Rahul Motkari a/w Ms. Manasi Pawar for the Appellant. Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Ms. Chitra Darekar for the Respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. RESERVED ON: 17th JULY 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd NOVEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT: BASIC FACTS: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit land. The Page no. 1 of 27 2-SA-326-1994.doc decree also directs payment of mesne profits to the plaintiff. The suit is filed for possession on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is occupying the same unauthorizedly. The second appeal is admitted vide order dated 22 nd April 1994 on the question of law framed in ground no.10, which reads as under: “10. Now, it is well – settled law that if the plea of adverse possession is raised and if the defendant proves that the defendant is in possession for more than 12 years, whether the defendant establishes or fails to establish the plea of adverse possession, it cannot save the starting point and ending point, so far as the limitation is concerned. A.I.R.1963 Mysore 1 is the first and the leading case and the principles laid down therein are not even considered.” PLAINTIFF’S CASE: 2. The suit property is a landed property originally owned by one Baban Gaikwad, i.e. husba