SUKUMABAI BANDU BALIGHATE Vs. CHANDGONDA KALGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, the original plaintiff, is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1985 filed by the original defendant who was aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court which decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. In appeal the lower Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 who was the original land owner did not contest the suit and appeal and her name was deleted. The present second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who is aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts and contentions in both the above appeals are identical except the name of the defendant No. 1, and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as referred before the trial Court.

(3.) A part of the suit land was allegedly purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the S. A. 249 of 1987 and the remaining part of the suit land was allegedly purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the companion S. A. No. 386 of 1987. One Dada Bala Magdum was the original tenant of the defendant No. 2, the land lady prior to 1957. He expired in the year 1964 leaving behind him his widow Rukabai and the present plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the suit land from the defendant No. 1 and alternatively she also prayed for possession of ? share from the suit land after partition. She has also prayed for mesne profits and costs. According to the plaintiff, the suit land S. No. 245 was 3 acre and 21 gunthas which was owned by the landlady the defendant No. 2. The deceased father of the plaintiff was her tenant for many years and he was in possession of the suit land. The said Dada Balu expired in the year 1964 and thereafter, the plaintiff and her mother were cultivating the land as tenants by inheritance. Since the deceased tenant had no son and the plaintiff was the only daughter, she became the legal heir along with her surviving mother. Since her mother was very old, she could not cultivate the land, and therefore, the plaintiff was carrying on the work of cultivation.