Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shubhangi Ramesh Bhatkar, was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 2006 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri. She sought a permanent injunction against the respondent, Dipmala Dattaram Bhatkar, to restrain the respondent from interfering with her possession over a property described as Survey No. 35 Sub Division 3/17/4 admeasuring 25 Ares at Mauje Padave Wadi, District Ratnagiri. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was part of a larger property belonging to Ramchandra Athale. She alleged that Rajaram Athale had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her husband, Ramesh Bhatkar, and based on that Power of Attorney, Ramesh Bhatkar sold the suit property to her by a deed of sale dated 31st May, 2005. The plaintiff further claimed that the respondent had purchased a portion of the larger property by a deed of sale dated 29th February, 1992, but that Ramchandra Athale and the respondent executed a Deed of Rectification dated 18th October, 2005, which fraudulently changed the description of the property sold to the respondent to include the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that after the rectification deed, the respondent objected to mutation entries in her favour and started interfering with her possession. The respondent contested the suit, denying that Ramchandra Athale had executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Ramesh Bhatkar and asserting that she had purchased the entire property admeasuring 1 Hectare 1 Are from Ramchandra Athale in 1992. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Power of Attorney, her possession over the suit property, and her title. The concurrent findings of the courts below were not perverse, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the rectification deed did not affect the plaintiff's rights as she had no title.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove possession and title - The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed executed by her husband under a power of attorney, but failed to prove the power of attorney or her possession. The defendant had an earlier sale deed and rectification deed. Held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 5-10). B) Evidence - Rectification Deed - Validity - The rectification deed dated 18.10.2005 changed the description of the property sold to the defendant in 1992. The plaintiff alleged it was a fraudulent attempt to include her property. The courts below found the rectification deed did not affect the plaintiff's rights as she had no title. Held that the rectification deed was valid and did not alter the defendant's prior rights (Paras 6-8). C) Civil Procedure - Appeal Against Concurrent Findings - Interference - The High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court and first appellate court both found against the plaintiff. Held that no interference was warranted (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit property.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the District Judge I, Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2010 dated 14th June, 2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- possession
- title
- rectification deed
- power of attorney
- sale deed
- permanent injunction
- concurrent findings
- interference with possession
