SHIVAJI LAXMAN BHUJBAL Vs. SHRIKANT MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 1/12/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Revision Darkhast No.70 of 2014, By the impugned Order, the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Subject matter of the dispute is the property admeasuring 27R from Gut No.63 of Village Vakad, District Pune. The said property was owned by late Sunita Ramchandra Vale. By sale deed dtd. 30/10/1991 said Sunita Vale sold the said property to Sulbha Keduskar. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of Sulbha Keduskar. Laxman Govind Bhujbal, the father of the Plaintiff and his sister-in-law Tarabi filed Special Civil Suit No.94 of 1993 for cancellation of sale deed dtd. 30/10/1991 executed in favour of Sulbha Keduskar, and sought declaration that they had acquired title to the said property by adverse possession. Parties to the said suit entered into consent terms on 24/11/2000, wherein it was consented that out of 27 R, the vendor/defendant Keduskar would retain with them land admeasuring 19 R, and Plaintiffs Laxman Bhujbal and Tarabai would retain possession and have title in respect of remaining portion of land admesuring 8 R. The suit filed by the father of the Plaintiff was decreed as per the consent terms dtd. 24/11/2000.

(3.) The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 thereafter filed an Execution Application being Darkhast No.70 of 2014 for execution of the Compromise decree dtd. 24/11/2000 in Special Civil Suit No.94 of 1993. The Petitioner herein put in his appearance and filed an application under Sec. 47 alleging that his grandfather Govind Mali @ Govind Bhujbal was the tenant of the property under Gut No.63. The Petitioner claims that neither his grandfather nor his father had surrendered his tenancy rights and that he alongwith Respondent Nos.5 to 11 who are the other legal representatives of Laxman Bhujbal have inherited the tenancy rights and are in possession of the property under Gut No.63 as tenant thereof. The Petitioners claim that the consent terms between his father and the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the consent decree passed on the basis of the said consent terms are void abinitio. On the basis of these pleadings the Petitioner sought dismissal of the execution application.