CHANDRAKANT Vs. MOUNAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is heard regarding framing of substantial question of law at the time of admission, as there arises no substantial question of law. The appeal is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons;

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are no other than the sisters of the plaintiff, because plaintiff claim to have given in adoption to one Pandurang Laudewale in the year 1965. The said Pandurang had two daughters by name Monamma and Neelamma who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. Therefore, in view of the plaintiff gone in adoption to Panduranga, he became the brother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) ON perusal of the documents placed before the Court apart from the pleading of the plaintiff, Ex. P1 to P7 are the RTC extracts pertaining to the suit land from the year 1979 to 1995 -96. Of course in the above said background the plaintiffs name has been mutated and he has shown to be possessor of the land. The remaining documents are the mutation extracts and revenue receipts for having paid the taxes etc. Ex. P.25 is the decree in O.S. No. 50/1990. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been adoptive son of Pandurang, who took him in adoption in the year 1965. The defendants contention that there was a compromise in Miscellaneous Petition No. 32/1994, wherein the southern side half portion of the suit land was given to the defendant No. 2, and accordingly she is the owner and possessor of the said land. PW.1 -plaintiff admits that the decree in O.S. No. 50/1990 is challenged in appeal.