GOPICHAND Vs. NIVRUTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by III Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1981 decided on 31.7.1990 thereby reversing the judgment of dismissal of suit bearing R.C.S. No.53 of 1977 decided on 24.8.1981 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon and declaring that the alienation by original Defendant No.4 (Respondent No.4) in favour of present appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and subsequent alienation by appellant No. 2 in favour of appellant No. 3 (who all are original defendants Nos. 1 to 3) are not binding on the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to the extent of their shares and further declaring that each of plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) had 1/4th share.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rising to this second appeal are as below; One Rambhau was the original owner of lands bearing survey Nos. 121 and 123 situated at village Kari Taluka Majalgaon. Rambhau expired about 25 years prior to filing of the suit. He was survived by his wife Indrabai(respondent No.3plaintiff No.3 since deceased, three sons Nivrutti, Sopan and Kishan (Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.). On 3.9.1971, Respondent No.4 Kisan, who was the eldest son of Rambhau, executed sale deed in favour of present appellant No.1 Gopichand (defendant No.1) in respect of Survey No.121. On 26.10.1971, respondent No.4 Kisan and appellant No.1 Gopichand executed joint sale deed in favour of appellant No.2 Mahadu (defendant No.2) in respect of both suit properties. On 14.2.1974, appellant No.2 Mahadu sold suit lands to appellant No. 3 Dattatraya (defendant No.3). On 2.4.1977, present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed suit alleging that it was their motherRespondent No.3 Indrabai who was looking after the lands after death of her husband Rambhau. After Respondent No.4 attained majority, his name was mutated in the record of rights of the suit land.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.4 Kisan (Respondent No.4) was illiterate and minor. In 197273 there was famine, but respondent No.4 was not in need of money and in spite of that, the saledeed was obtained from him. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant No.4 was addicted to various vices and was debauchrous; and without legal necessity he disposed of suit lands and therefore those transactions are not on binding on plaintiffsrespondents No.1 to 3. So, the suit was filed for partition and declaration that the sale deed executed by Defendant No.4respondent No.4 is not binding on plaintiffs.