KRISHNABAI Vs. DNYANDEO LAXMAN YEYALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by original defendant No. 1 against the decree for possession passed against her by the learned. Assistant Judge, Satara. The original plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are the respondents before me.

(2.) IT will be useful to set our the genealogical table showing the relationship of the parties. MADHAVRAO|| |Laxman Ramu=Gunabai| (died 7 -11 -97) | | | KrishnabalDnyandeo Dattu (Deft. No. 1)(Plff. No. 1) (Plff. No.2) From the genealogy it will be seen that Madhavrao had two sons Laxman and Ramu Admittedly Ramu died before the year 1937. He had no male issue. His widow's name was Gunabai and his daughter was Krishnabai who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Gunabai died on 7th Nov., 1967. Rama's brother deo Laxman (plaintiff No. 1) and Daturu Laxman (plaintiff No. 2).

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the compromise was acted upon the Gunabai got the possession of land Survey No. 643/2 -A admeasuring 2 acres and 20 gunthas and continued to be in possession of the same actually or constructively, till 15th Sep., 1943.when the executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter Crishnabai, defendant No. 1 in these proceedings, The plaintiffs. No doubt, contended that in spite of the gift deed gunabai continued to be in possession to the suit land and that the defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest in the same. Gunabai died on 17th Nov., 1967. The plaintiff therefore contended that they got the right of possession of this suit land on the said date of the death of Gunabai. They contended that Krishna had no right, title and interest on the property either by virtue of the gift deed or independent of the gift deed. So far as the gift deed was concerned their contention was that the gift deed was void upon Gunabai from making any alienation of the property by virtue of the deed or maintenance. So far as the right of the defended No. 1. Independent of the gift deed, was concerned, the plaintiffs' contention was that in the peculiar circumstances of the case Krishnabai could not be said to have become full -fledged owner of the wet land and license defendant No. 1could not he said to have inherited the suit land from Gunabai, In the suite defendant No. 2 was impleaded because according to the plaintiffs his name was shown in the record of rights as a tenant. The plaintiffs contended that even if any rights were created in favour of defendant No. 3 by Gunabai they were extinguished with the death of Gunabai. They therefore contended that they were entitled to actual possession of the land in question from both the defendants.