MIR KARIMODDIN AJMODDIN KAVJANG Vs. KASHINATH BHIMSEN INGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Kashinath Ingale, the ancestor of respondent No. 1, herein instituted Reg. Civil Suit No. 419 of 1967 for possession of the house property. The house property bears Municipal Committee No. 1412 of CTS No. 1592 of Ahmednagar. Fakira Mahadu and four others were the defendants in the said suit. According to the plaintiff Kashinath, Fakira was his tenant and defendant No. 2 was unlawful sub-tenant of defendant No. 1 Fakira. Other defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were impleaded to avoid possible obstructions from them. This suit was decreed on 5-12-1969. The appeal of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 against the same No. 30 of 1970 was dismissed with costs on 28-6-1972. Kashinath died in the meanwhile and his heirs the respondents Nos. 1-A to 1-F initiated Darkhast Proceedings No. 220 of 1972. Baburao Yallappa, the father of the defendant Nos. 3 to 4 in the original suit No. 419 of 1967 instituted Reg. Civil Suit No. 529 of 1972 for declaration of their ownership of the same house. He claimed to have purchased the house from one Mir. Karimoddin Ajmoddin Kavjang, the petitioner before me. The said suit was dismissed on 8-12-1976 and his appeal was dismissed on 14-6-1978. In that suit, the present petitioner had deposed on oath that he had sold his property by registered sale deed to the said Baburao Yallappa on 8-12-1969.

(2.) The present respondents Nos. 1-A to 1-F thereupon instituted Darkhast No. 250 of 1977 for possession of the suit property in execution of the decree on 8-9-1977. Warrant were ordered to be issued on the very same day under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same could not be executed due to the obstruction presumably by the petitioner. Even, before the decree-holder could take out notice for removal of the obstruction the petitioner himself filed an application (Ex. 21) on 20-3-1977 for obstruction the execution of the decree against him, he being in possession and not being a part to the said decree. He claimed title of the property to himself and claimed possession thereof even before the Suit No. 419 of 1967 was filed. He appears to have by that time initiated a separate Suit No. 596 of 1977 on the strength of his title in respect of the suit property.

(3.) The heirs of the decree-holders contested the claim of the petitioner in Exh. 21. The statement of oath made by the present petitioner in Suit No. 529 of 1972 filed by Baburao Yallappa was also brought to the notice of the Court.