SHAKUNTALA Vs. RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the order dated 9th August, 2012 passed below Exhibit-137 in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2000 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole, District Ahmednagar.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments in the plaint and submitted that, the suit property was earlier owned by one Ashok Narayan Shete, and father of petitioner NO.1 A Dhondiba Anand Balsaraf was in possession of the suit property under tenancy right. It is submitted that, there was dispute in respect of the tenancy of the suit property, later on, there was compromise between the parties and the original plaintiffs and respondent No. 4 purchased the suit property from Ashok Narayan Shete. Respondent No. 1 is a nephew of petitioner No. 1 in whose name 17 Are land out of 36 Are of the suit property of the petitioners was mutated only as a family arrangement, however, actual possession of 17 Are land was never given to respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 taking disadvantage has mutated his name for 17 Are land from the suit property and sold the same to respondent No. 2 by executing the sale deed dated 2nd December, 1997. It is further submitted that, on the strength of said void sale deed, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are disturbing possession of the petitioners and respondent NO. 4 over the suit property. Hence, the petitioners filed suit for declaration and injunction.