KRISHNADEO SHAMRAO PAWAR Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA BHAU BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN both these writ petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution, an order dated March 3, 1980 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in revision application No. MRT-SS-336/78 is under challenge.

(2.) THE petitioner, Mahadeo Ramhari More, in writ petition No. 3549 of 1980 filed regular civil suit Nos. 85 and 87 of 1974 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vita against one Shamrao Pawar, the deceased father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in writ petition No. 3549 of 1980 and the petitioners in writ petition No. 3545 of 1980 for recovery of amounts of Rs 2,500 and Rs. 7,000 respectively with future interest. Both the suits were decreed in the year 1976. Petitioner, Mahadeo More, thereafter filed regular darkhast Nos. 2 and 7 of 1976 for execution of decrees passed in his favour. In the said darkhast proceedings, the land in dispute being gat No. 942 belonging to deceased Shamrao Pawar was attached. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (writ petition No. 3549 of 1980) then filed regular civil suit No. 112 of 1976 in the court of the learned Civil judge (Senior Division), Vita against petitioner Mahadeo More for declaration of their ownership to the land bearing gat No. 942 and certain other lands and as a consequential relief prayed for an order of attachment of gat No. 942. The learned. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vita granted stay of the order of attachment of land bearing gat No. 942 on an application for interim relief filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (writ petition No 3549 of 1980 ). The District Court, Sangli, however, iq appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and held that the share of deceased Shamrao Pawar in the disputed land bearing gat No. 942 was liable to be attached and sold in execution.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Ramchandra Bhau Bhosale, in both the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No, 1") who is admittedly a resident, of Andhra Pradesh filed applications in regular darkhast Nos. 2 and 7 of 1976 alleging inter alia that he was in possession of the disputed land Under a deed of mortgage (a conditional sale deed) executed by deceased Shamrao Pawar on March 26, 1970. His applications were found to be untenable by the executing court inasmuch as the conditional sale deed upon which he was relying was already declared as illegal an d void by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated February 28, 1974. Deceased shamrao Pawar executed a sale deed in respect of the disputed land in favour of respondent No. 1 on October 13, 1977. In the meanwhile, deceased Shamrao Pawar had already executed an agreement of sale of the disputed land in favour of petitioner's (Mahadeo More) sons and they filed regular civil suit No. 177 of 1977 against deceased Shamrao Pawar and also against respondent No. 1 for specific performance. The said suit is still pending.