RAZYABEE Vs. SK. HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-original defendants, who are respectively daughter and son-in-law of the respondent-original plaintiff have filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 09.07.2 019, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2017 dismissing said appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree for perpetual injunction dated 10.11.2017, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hadgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.2 39 of 2 016, filed against them by the respondents.

(2.) Mrs. Sangit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent filed aforesaid suit against them simplicitor for perpetual injunction on 11.07.2016 in respect of House No.23/6 (CEN No.635) Ward No.6 (New Ward No.1) (hereinafter referred to as the "suit house"), contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit house, since 1975. In 2012, as his wife was not keeping well, the appellants - his daughter and son-in-law had come to meet his wife and as he had no money for his wife's treatment, they had obtained his signature on blank stamp paper, saying that the amount would be sanctioned to him for treatment of his wife, if bond is given in Tahsil office and Government hospital. It is contended by the respondent that the appellants had kept said bond paper with them. It is submitted that as per case of the respondent, his wife died on 25.09.2014 and that he has been residing alone in the suit house and the appellants threatened to dispossess him from the suit house contending that they are having Hibanama of the suit house and attempt of dispossessing him was made by the appellants on 30.05.2016.

(3.) Mrs. Sang it, learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the suit proceeded ex-parte against the appellants and the Trial Court after framing necessary issues i.e. regarding respondent's possession over the suit house, regarding obstruction made by the appellants in the respondent's possession over the suit house and on answering said issues in the affirmative, decreed the suit for perpetual injunction and perpetually restrained the appellants and anybody else on their behalf from obstructing the respondent's enjoyment of the suit house by the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017. It is submitted that said decree was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2007 by the appellants on several grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal including the ground that on 14.03.2014, the respondent executed gift-deed (Hibanama) in favour of appellant No.1 - his daughter, of the suit house and delivered possession of the suit house to the appellants and therefore the findings of the Trial Court regarding respondent's possession over the suit house and the alleged obstruction made by the appellants in his possession are incorrect. It is submitted that the Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal with costs and therefore the appellants are before this Court.