LAWS(BOM)-2010-5-50

MAHADAPPA SANGAPPA BHANGE Vs. SHIVAJI NARSU DHORMARE

Decided On May 07, 2010
MAHADAPPA SANGAPPA BHANGE Appellant
V/S
SHIVAJI NARSU DHORMARE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by original Defendant No.4 Mahadappa, being aggrieved by common judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Latur, in two appeals i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1983 and 131 of 1983 decided on 2.1.1988 whereby appeal No.130 of 1983 filed by plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.l and 2 herein) for possession of the suit property was allowed and appeal No.131 of 1983 filed by original defendant No.4 Mahadappa (present appellant) challenging the finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 holding the plaintiffs to be the owners on title of the suit land was dismissed. Said two Regular Civil Appeals were directed against the judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai in Regular Civil Suit No.338 of 1975 decided on 28.8.1980. Plaintiffs had filed first appeal because the trial court had dismissed their suit for possession, and defendant No.4 had filed first appeal because it was held by the trial court that the plaintiffs had superior title and that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (present respondent Nos.3 to 5) had no title to the suit property and they could not have created tenancy in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.4-appellant herein.

(2.) At this stage itself, it may be made clear that pending this appeal, five brothers of Mahadappa were joined as appellants and thereafter four out of six brothers compromised the matter with original plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.l and 2 herein). However two of the brothers refused to compromise the matter and they wanted to pursue the appeal. As a result, those four brothers, who wanted to compromise the matter, were transposed as Respondents and those two brothers who did not want to compromise the matter and prosecute the appeal, were continued to be the appellants.

(3.) For proper appreciation of the core issue involved in this case, it is necessary to reproduce in brief some part of the pleadings giving rise to this second appeal as under: