Blog

No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal was upheld by the High Court of Bombay through the learned bench led by MANGESH S. PATIL, J. in the case of MAHENDRA BALRAJ POTPULEWAL Vs PREMSUKH MANSUKH SANCHETI AND OTHERS (WITH CA/426/2020 IN SA 15/2020) on 03.03.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the defendant has filed an appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the concurrent findings and decisions of the Courts below holding the respondents/plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit property based on title. Rampyaribai was the owner of the suit property which was described as property bearing C.T.S. No. 4670 corresponding to Municipal House No. 3-5-8 of Aurangabad, except the two shops from the ground floor which have been in possession of the defendants as tenants.

According to plaintiffs, Rampyaribai had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Subhash and Ajay from whom they purchased it under a sale-deed. They averred that pursuant to the sale-deed they were put in possession of the suit property. However, the defendants clandestinely entered into possession. Hence they prayed for possession of the suit property based on title.

The defendants resisted the suit in toto. They admitted that Rampyaribai was owner of the suit property. They also admitted that they were in possession of couple of shops from the ground floor. They further contended that they were also in possession of one more room from the upper floor. They denied that the respondents purchased the suit property from Rampyaribai through her power of attorneys. According to them they were put in possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement and were entitled to protect the possession.

The learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 vehemently submitted that the respondents had miserably failed to prove the sale-deed. Rampyaribai was already dead before execution of the sale-deed.

The Court observed that “there is no dispute about the fact that Rampyaribai was the owner of the suit property. The defendants tentatively disputed the power of attorney executed by Rampyaribai in favour of Subhash and Ajay, who on her behalf as her power of attorney holders, executed the sale-deed. the power of attorney that was produced on the record was a notarized document and carried a presumption under Section 85 of the Evidence Act which was correctly drawn by the courts below.”

In view of facts and circumstances, court held that the contention of the appellants that Rampyaribai was not alive on the date of the sale-deed falls to the ground. Considering all the aforementioned facts, circumstances and particularly the concurrent reasonings given by the courts below, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.

Click here to read the Judgement

Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal