IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE SATARA

AT SATARA
Misc. Civil Appeal No. 331/2022

Shri. Kisan Antu Bakale … Appellant

Age – 84 yrs., Occu. – Agriculture (Orig. Plaintiff)
R/o. At Mugdalbhatachiwadi,
Post Shivajinagar, Tal. Dist. Satara
Mobile No. 9168385202

V/s

1) Sou. Kishori @ Arundhati Sharad Talwalkar

Age - 68 yrs., Occu. – Household
R/o. 3, Ramacha Got, Satara
2) Tahasildar, Satara
Tahasildar Office, Powai Naka, Satara
3) Asst. Superintendant, Land Records, Satara
Land Record Office, Powai Naka, Satara
4) Shri. Rohit Sharad Talwalkar
Age – 48 yrs., Occu. – Service
R/o. 3, Ramacha Got, Satara … Respondents
(Orig. Defendants)

The Appellant above named most humbly and

respectfully pray and submits as under :-

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dt.

16/7/2022 passed by The Hon’ble 3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division,
Satara in R.C.S. No. 167/2022, the present Appellant has preferred
the present appeal challenging the legality of the observations made
in the above referred order. The parties to the present appeal for
the sake of convenience are henceforth referred as per their status
in the original suit.
2|Page

Brief Facts of the case :-

1) The facts enumerated in the plaint are hereby

confirmed in the present Misc. Appeal. The suit property more
specifically mentioned and described in the plaint is the subject
matter of the present appeal. The dispute between the parties has
been more specifically mentioned in the plaint whereby the
appellant seeks the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of
agricultural suit land described in para 1A of the plaint.

2) The suit property originally belonged to Late

Raghunath Dagadu Jadhav who had tenancy rights in the same.
Accordingly in the year 1982 tenancy proceeding were initiated and
certificate was issued as per the provisions of Sec. 32G of Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act. It is the case of the Plaintiff that
the suit property originally was numbered as Survey No. 129/9
admeasuring 7 Acre 30 Gunthas of land. The said property was
divided into subdivisions and accordingly Late Raghunath Dagadu
Jadhav was allotted 2 Ane 8 Pai i.e. 1 Acre 11 Gunthas land. As such
the 7/12 extract of the suit property reflected the above title and
right of the predecessor in title of the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff has contended that on 10/4/2001 he

purchased the suit property and accordingly he was in possession of
0 H. 51R agricultural land. The Plaintiff has further stated that the
said possession in total admeasuring area was continuous,
uninterrupted and without any obstruction. The peaceful
possession of the suit property in the total land admeasuring 0 H.
51R was never objected by the predecessor in title of the Defendant
no. 1 and 4 i.e. the adjacent land holders of the suit property.

4) The Plaintiff after the execution of the sale deed

confirmed the above admeasuring area and at that particular
3|Page

moment the adjacent land holder Shri. Dinkar Bapuso Dhanawade

and Sopan Maruti Dhanawade obstructed the peaceful possession of
the Plaintiff, whereby the Plaintiff denied the right of the said land
holders in the suit property. Subsequently, on 21/01/2009 the
adjacent land bearing Gat No. 268 admeasuring area 0 H. 15R was
purchased by the Defendant No. 1 from the above mentioned land
holders. At that particular point the Defendant No. 1 was also made
aware of the Plaintiff’s right & exclusive possession in the suit
property described in the para 1A of the plaint. The Defendant No. 1
was fully aware of the Plaintiff’s right and possession in 0 H. 51R
which happens to be suit property mentioned in para 1A of the
plaint. Since then the Plaintiff in presence of Defendant No. 1 was
peacefully cultivating the suit property. The Defendant No. 1 never
obstructed the continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession
of the Plaintiff in the suit property. Since thereafter on 22/8/2014
the Defendant No. 1 has purchased Gat No. 267 which is a property
adjacent to the suit land. Thereafter the Defendant No. 1 has raised a
compound wall on the property purchased by her i.e. Gat No. 267
and 268.

5) It is the case of the Plaintiff that till 2016 there was no

any obstruction to the Plaintiff’s possession in the suit property by
the Defendants. In pursuance of the order passed by the Defendant
No. 2 in BND/SR/6/2016 the Plaintiff’s rights was thereafter
challenged in various proceedings before the Revenue Authorities.
The Plaintiff apart from the right acquired through registered sale
deed claims adverse possession in the remaining land of the suit
property. As such in pursuance of the above referred order the
Defendant No. 1 in collusion with the Defendant No. 2 issued a
illegal notice dt. 17/1/2022 whereby it was tried to execute the
order passed by the Defendant No. 2 in the above referred
4|Page

BND/SR/6/2016 proceeding. The said notice is illegal and objected

by the Plaintiff. The possession in pursuance of the said alleged
notice is not delivered or transferred to the Defendant No. 1 on
3/2/2022. As such the Plaintiff’s legal rights are frustrated by the
acts of the Defendants the suit under consideration is preferred by
the present Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 4 has purchased the suit
property referred in para 1B and as such he is being added as party
to the suit.

6) The Defendant No. 1 and 4 in collusion with the

revenue authorities are obstructing the peaceful possession of the
Plaintiff in the suit property on the basis of the above referred
order. The Plaintiff in order to safeguard his legal rights has
preferred an interim application below Exh. 5 for preventing the
Defendant No. 1 and 4 from obstructing the possession of the
Plaintiff in suit property and further for preventing them from
taking possession of the same.

7) The Defendant No. 1 and 4 appeared and resisted the

suit of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 and 4 by filing say claims
the right on the basis of the alleged order. The Learned Lower Court
without appreciating the facts and documents placed on record have
rejected the application filed below Exh. 5 by order dt. 16/7/2022,
whereby the present appeal is also being preferred on the following
grounds of objections.
a. That the order passed by Lower Court is against
principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

b. The Learned Lower Court has failed to consider

the settled possession of the Plaintiff in the suit property. The
Learned Lower Court has erred in holding that the Plaintiff has no
prima facie case in respect of the relief claimed in the interim
5|Page

application. The Learned Lower Court has further erred in holding

that the Plaintiff has failed to prove balance of convenience in his
favour. So also the Learned Lower Court has erred in holding that no
irreparable loss will be caused to the Plaintiff in the event the
interim application is rejected.

c. The Learned Lower Court has failed to consider

the affidavits filed of adjacent owners of the suit property who
states the settled possession of the Plaintiff in the suit property. The
Learned Lower Court has failed to consider that there is no any
counter affidavit filed on record against the above version brought
on record which states the possession prima facie in favour of the
Plaitniff.

d. The Learned Lower Court has failed to consider

the objection raised by the Plaintiff in respect of the notice dt.
17/1/2022. The possession receipt thereafter dt. 3/2/2022 seems
to be illegal and void ab initio. It will be relevant to note that the
possession allegedly shown to be given to the Defendant No. 1 is
doubtful as she had no right to receive the same; as she had
transferred her right, title and interest in the properties referred in
the para 1B of the plaint in the favour of the Defendant No. 4 vide
registered sale deed. The said fact has not been appreciated by the
Learned Lower Court which creates doubt in appreciation of
evidence by the Learned Lower Court while adjudicating the interim
application.
e. The Learned Lower has failed to note the
exclusive possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The court
has further fail to observe the private measurement carried by the
plaintiff and the defendant No 1 wherein The plaintiff’s possession
in the suit property can be readily inferred. The Learned Lower
6|Page

Court has not relied or noted the documents which reveals the legal
and peaceful position of the plaintiff in the suit property.

f. The Learned Lower Court has wrong and

incorrect inferences and further has not drawn inferences which
legitimately arise from the facts on record.

g. The Learned Lower Court has misinterpreted

the citations placed by the Plaintiff and without giving any
observation have discarded the same which are squarely applicable
to the disputed in hand.

h. That the Learned Lower Court has considered

the whole matter with a wrong point of view and thereby arrived at
wrong conclusions.

i. That the judgment and decree passed by the

Learned Lower Court has caused serious miscarriage of justice.

8) Note on Limitation:- The appellant had preferred an

application for obtaining the certified copies of the order dt.
16/7/2022 on 21/7/2022. The certified copies were received on
3/8/2022. As such the appeal preferred as on today is well within
the period of limitation.

9) For these and among other grounds of objections

which will be argued at the time of the final hearing of the
present appeal, it is therefore prayed on behalf of the appellant
that -
a. The present appeal be allowed with costs.

b. The order passed by 3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior

Division, Satara in R.C.S. No. 167/2022 dated
16/7/2022 be kindly quashed and set aside and the
application filed below Exh. 5 be allowed.
7|Page

c. The interim application filed along with the

appeal be considered and allowed in the given
circumstances.

d. Any just and proper order in favour of the

appellant be passed from time to time.

For this act of kindness, justice and generosity the

present appellant shall as in duty bound ever pray.

SATARA (Z.D.Mulla)
DATE : 25/08/2022 Advocate for Appellant

Note:

The respondent no.2 & 3 are formal parties to the present appeal.
The appellant has not claimed any relief against the said respondent
no. 2 & 3. Hence no notice be issued to the said respondent no. 2 & 3.