Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
15. Heard Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel for the respondent.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as, in our opinion, the High Court is right in its reasoning and its conclusion.
17. As observed supra, the only question involved in the appeal before the High Court was whether the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31) in relation to the suit land was duly proved by the respondent.
18. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that since the sale deed was not properly proved, the respondent's suit was dismissed whereas the High Court reversed the said finding and held that the sale . deed was duly proved as required in law and accordingly passed the decree for possession against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
19. We agree with the reasoning of the High Court. In our opinion also, the respondent was able to prove the sale deed and was, therefore, rightly held entitled to claim decree for possession of the suit land on the strength of the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31) against the appellant.
20. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its execution as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and Secondly, Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the examination of the attesting witness to prove the execution of the document, does not apply to sale deed, which is governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
21. It is not in dispute that the appellant (defendant) in this case did not dispute the respondent's vendor's (Housing Society) title. On the other hand, she, in clear terms, admitted their title in her written G statement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent entered in witness box and proved its execution and further did not raise any objection when the sale deed was being exhibited in evidence and indeed, rightly for want of any legal basis.
22. In the light of these admitted facts, we.are of the view that the H sale deed dated 29.12.1981 was duly proved by the respondent and was, SMT. BAYANABAI KAWARE v. RAJENDRA S/o BABURAO DHOTE [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] therefore, rightly relied on by the High Court for passing a decree of A possession against the appellant. It was, in our opinion, a clear. case where the respondent had a better title of the suit land as against the appellant, who had no title to the suit land. All that the appellant had was a plea of adverse possession which was not held proved.
23. This being the only point involved in the case and the same having been answered .against the appellant, we find no merit in the appeal. Jhe appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.