Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1)
1
Page1
of
the
appellants
herein
under
2
Page2
3
Page3
4
Page4
However, due to
5
Page5
6)
possession
of
the
suit
premises
to
the
premises
between
the
parties
was
not
6
Page6
predecessors
were,
therefore,
in
7
Page7
10)
learned
senior
counsel
for
the
respondents.
13)
8
Page8
keeping
between
the
in
mind
revisionary
the
and
subtle
the
first
distinction
appellate
9
Page9
14)
between
the
predecessor-in-title
of
the
10
Page10
predecessor-in-title
redeemed
the
alleged
11
Page11
18)
Justice
12
Page12
19)
13
Page13
principle
of
law
laid
down
in
the
14
Page14
Bench
in
the
case
of
Hindustan
In other
15
Page15
22)
to prove their ownership through their predecessor-intitle on the strength of sale deed (Ex-P.6/7) of the suit
premises whereas the respondents failed to prove their
defence. Indeed, the burden being on them, it was
necessary for the respondents to prove that the sale in
favour of the appellants predecessor-in-title of suit
premises was a transaction of mortgage and not an
outright sale. Since the respondents did not adduce
any documentary or oral evidence to prove their
defence, the first appellate Court was justified in
allowing the eviction petition.
having
recorded
categorical
findings
that
the
16
Page16
relationship
of
landlord-tenant
was
proved
and
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
lastly
17
Page17
18
Page18
19
Page19