SABAJI TUKARAM RANE Vs. GOPAL WAMAN RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and respondent No.l. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are original defendants. (Hereinafter the parties are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants, for the sake of convenience). The original plaintiff filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979, in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kudal, for a declaration that he is owner of the land Survey No.32. Hissa No.77, admeasuring 20 Gunthas, situated at village Kavathi, taluka Kudal. It is contended that defendant Nos.l and 2 had no right, title and interest in the suit land.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, by virtue of two sale-deeds dated 6-5-1897 and 5-3-1946, the plaintiff had become owner of entire land, Survey No.32, Hissa No.77. The defendants did not deny the execution of the sale-deeds in favour of the plaintiff. However, they contended that by the said sale-deed, the plaintiff s predecessor did not acquire the entire land Survey No.32, Hissa No.77. and he was owner of the adjoining land which was part of the said property. The trial Court decreed the suit, filed by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court, however, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the land namely Survey No. 32. Hissa No. 77 formed the only part of the property purchased by the plaintiff s predecessor-in-title under the two sale deeds and as such therefore, the land comprised of said Survey number formed part of the two-third share purchased by the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title, under the two sale-deeds, and therefore, it refused to grant a prohibitory order in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following two grounds-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the defendants had not denied the sale-deed which were executed in favour of predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the trial Court had correctly interpreted contents of the sale-deeds and had held that the plaintiff was owner of the entire land and was entitled to get the prohibitory order of injunction against the defendants. He submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in interpreting the sale-deeds in a different manner. He submitted that even if the shares were calculated, it was apparent that the appellant/original plaintiff was owner of the entire land. The learned counsel has taken me to the judgment and order of the Appellate Court in support of the said submission.