KAMLABAI Vs. BHIKCHAND KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Balkisan and his step-brother Hanumandas (who is now represented by respondent 2), were joint owners of a structure' admeasuring approximately 48'x' 27' at Dhule, Maharashtra. The appellant's husband Mangaldas Chunilal, who was in possession thereof as a tenant, was conducting a flour mill in the said premises. Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 247 of 1965 against Mangaldas asking for possession of the particular portion of the property which had fallen to his share. Radhabai, the step-mother of Hanumandas. also filed a suit for eviction of Mangaldas in respect of the portion which had fallen to Hanumandas' share. That was Suit No. 234 of 1966. That suit was decreed by the trial court and the decision therein, not having been appealed from, has become final, The trial court had decreed Suit No. 247 of 1965 filed by respondent No. 1 also. Mangaldas filed an appeal against that decree and he succeeded in the District Court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Respondent No. 1, however, filed Spl. Civil Appln. No. 2685 of 1967 in the High Court of Bombay which was allowed and respondent 1's suit for eviction was decreed.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 applied for execution of the decree obtained by him and, in 1971, he succeeded in obtaining possession of the suit premises. It appears that there were certain moveable properties in the premises, consisting of parts of the flour mill which the appellant's husband was running. A notice was given to the appellant by the execution court, her husband having died in the meanwhile, to remove those moveables, but she did not do so. The moveables, were then removed to the court where they were lying from 1971 till 1975. In about 1975, they were sold in an auction to respondent No. 2 for Rs. 1,851.

(3.) The appellant then took proceedings in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Dhule, against respondent No. 1, praying that she should be put back in possession of the premises as well as the machinery. That application was taken through all its stages and ultimately, Civil Revision Application No. 521 of 1979 filed by her was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant took similar proceedings against respondent No. 2 which were also dismissed eventually by the High Court.