RAMDAS Vs. KALAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Appeals from orders are almost between the same parties and involve common point and, therefore, they are being heard together and proposed to dispose of by a common judgment.

(2.) Appeal from Order No.12/2019 and Appeal from Order No.22/2019 challenge the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.22/2015 by learned District Judge-8, Beed on 14.12.2018. Appeal from Order No.12/2019 has been filed by original defendant Nos.3 and 5; whereas Appeal from Order No.22/2019 is filed by original plaintiff. Original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 322/2005 before Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, District Beed for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2019 has been filed by original deft No.1, who was later on transposed as plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2005, with original defendant No.3 and 4; whereas Appeal from Order No.23 of 2005 is filed by original defendant No. 5 in the same suit. Appeal from Order No.13/2019 and Appeal from Order No. 23/2019 challenge the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/2015 by learned District Judge-8, Beed on 14.12.2018. Parties are referred by their names for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

(3.) It appears from all these Appeal from Orders that Dwarkabai Babasaheb Pokale, who was defendant No.6 in RCS No.322/2005, had filed RCS No.95/2005 for partition, separate possession and mesne profits as well as for declaration that the divorce obtained from Defendant No.5 by deceased Babasaheb is legal. Defendant No.5 is plaintiff in RCS No.322/2005. During pendency of the suit, Dwarkabai expired and in her RCS No.95/2005, original defendant No.1 therein, was transposed as plaintiff. Both the suits were tried before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, District Beed and they were disposed of by separate judgments by the same Judge on 31.12.2014. RCS No.322/2005 was decreed. The Kalawati and Ramdas were declared as owners of undivided 1/4th share each in the suit land. Defendant No.1 in RCS No. 322/2005 and deft. No.6 in RCS No.95/2005, viz. Shantaram was restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In RCS No.95/2005 along with the transposed plaintiff, deft.Nos. 3 to 5 were declared as owners of 1/4th share each in the suit land as well as suit house. The partition was directed to be effected through precept to be sent to the Collector in respect of the agricultural land and through Court Commissioner in respect of the suit house.