SAKHARAM MAHADJI RAJEGORE Vs. DATTA VITHALRAO RAJEGORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 6 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 251 of 1984 de-cided by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nanded on 12.4.1990, thereby set-ting aside the dismissal of suit bearing R.C.S. No. 229 of 1980 by II Joint Civil Judge, Jun-ior Division, Nanded on 10.9.1984 and al-lowing the appeal and the suit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) for partition, declaration that they have 2/3rd share in Gat No. 288 admeasuring 1 hector 34 R, and Gat No. 192 admeasuring 2 hector 90 R situ-ated at village Shelgaon, Taluka Nanded and further declaration that the sale-deeds dated 20.5.1980 executed by defendant No. 1 (re-spondent No. 3) in favour of appellants (de-fendant Nos. 2 to 6) in respect of the suit lands are not binding on the respondents-plaintiffs to the extent of their 2/3rd share. The partition of house property was also al-lowed. The appellants are mainly aggrieved because of declaration regarding sale-deeds and partition of the suit lands.

(2.) It is the case of respondent No. 1 Dattatraya and respondent No. 2 Satyabhambai (plaintiffs No. 1 and 2) that they are son and wife respectively of respond-ent No. 3 Vittharao (defendant No. 1). Suit lands bearing Gat Nos. 288 and 192 situ-ated at village Shelgaon, Taluka Nanded and a house bearing Gram Panchayat No. 98 were the ancestral properties of respondents. Re-spondent No. 3 Vitthal was mentally weak and was previously admitted in mental hos-pital for some time and was unable to safe-guard his own interest and thereafter re-spondent No. 2 Satyabhamabai was looking after the management of family properties. In April 1980, respondent No. 2 along with her minor son respondent No. 1 had gone to village Alegaon at her parental house and on returning back after about fifteen days to Shelgaon, they found that respondent No. 3 was not at the house and was taken to vil-lage Kasarkheda. Thereafter, several at-tempts were made by respondent No. 2 to bring respondent No. 3 back to Shelgaon. She learnt that one Mahadu Rajegore of Shelgaon, who is father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (original defendant Nos. 2 to 4), was try-ing to get the family property of respondents transferred in his name with the help of some persons from Kasarkheda. Anticipating that respondent No. 3 might transfer family prop-erties in the name of Mahadu without legal necessity, respondent No. 2 initially filed present suit along with respondent No. 1 only against respondent No. 3 for partition and perpetual injunction and also sought tem-porary injunction restraining respondent No. 3 from transferring family properties in the name of third person. In the suit, prayer for partition and separate possession of the shares of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was also made. At the same time, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had also given public notice in news-paper called "Godatir" not to purchase prop-erty from respondent No. 3.

(3.) Subsequently, pending suit, respond-ent Nos. 1 and 2 learnt about the sale-deeds executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of appellants and, therefore, the appellants were added as parties and declaration was sought that the sale-deeds in favour of the appel-lants were not binding on the shares of re-spondent Nos. 1 and 2.