SAKHAHARI Vs. PRESIDENT, SWARAJYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard fnally with the consent of the parties, at admission stage.

(2.) The respondent/original plaintiff (hereinafter called as 'Sanstha') has instituted a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.29 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D. Khultabad against the petitioners herein for a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land bearing gat no.767 admeasuring 4 Hector 60R to the extent of 65R land situated at village Bajar Sawangi, Tq. Khultabad, District Aurangabad. The respondent Sanshta/original plaintiff has purchased the suit land from petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Dagadu Ghule (original defendant no.1) through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/1/2009. Initially, the respondent/original plaintiff has purchased 0Hector 70R land from the petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Ghule out of the land gat no.767 alongwith third share in the water of the well. However, it was revealed that mistakenly land was mentioned as 70R instead of 65R. Accordingly, correction deed was executed on 26/8/2009 and four boundaries of the land admeasuring 65 R of land are the same as mentioned in the original sale-deed. It is clarifed in the correction- deed that other details of the original sale-deed are true and correct and no change is made with respect to those particulars. Thereafter, mutation entries with respect to the sale-deed dtd. 16/1/2009 as well as correction deed dtd. 26/8/2009 are duly recorded in the 7/12 extract of the land gat no.767. The respondent was enjoying the suit property peacefully since the date of purchase without any obstruction or interference.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent/original plaintiff that with oblique intention defendant no.1 Sakhahari in collusion with defendant nos.2 to 4 prepared a false and fabricated document of Vatanipatra on a stamp of Rs.100.00 and thereby partitioned 13R land amongst defendant nos.2 Ramdas and 4 Prabhakar. It reveals from the said Vatnipatra that defendant no.1 Sakhahari Ghule has given 6 1/2 R land each to defendant Ramdas and defendant Prabhakar and as such 0H 13 R land pretended to have been allotted to them by way of said 'Vatanipatra'. It is not a registered document. Thereafter, said defendants have sold their said share in favour of defendant no.5 by executing a registered sale- deed dtd. 20/4/2018. According to the respondent/plaintiff, defendants tried to encroach the land owned and possessed by the respondent on the basis of false and fabricated Vatanipatra, so also the sale-deed dtd. 20/4/2018. The respondent, thus constrained to institute the suit for a decree of perpetual injunction.