GANPAT BABURAO BORASTE Vs. VINAYAK PANDURANG WAGHMARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Girish Agarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Respondents.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter called Plaintiffs) instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 162/2012, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik for the reliefs; (i) to declare that their title to the suit property has matured by adverse possession; and, (ii) that, sale deeds dtd. 9/1/2012 and 12/4/2012 executed by the defendants, in respect of suit property, were not binding on them. Nearly seven years after instituting the suit, on 18th January, 20218, Plaintiffs moved an application under Order VIL Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the plaint.

(3.) Facts relevant for the decision of this petition are like this; Gat No. 1075 is agricultural land. Plaintiffs' father, Pandurang Trambak Waghmare, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 74/1994 (First Suit) in respect of the said Agricultural Land. Pandurang (Plaintiffs' father) pleaded, in the first suit that, Ramchandra Kashinath Joshi was owner of land Gat No. 1075. He died in the year 1946. Pandurang's uncle, Govind was cultivating the said land as protected tenant. Govind died in 1962, survived by Pandurang Trambak - (father of the Plaintiffs) Shankar and Baburao. Pandurang, pleaded that Baburao, died issuless in 1960, survived by wife, Parvatibai Baburao. Parvatibai, executed a Will deed dtd. 12/8/1986 and bequeathed 1/3rd area of the suit property to Balkrishna Shankar Gurav (Waghmare), Defendant No.1, in the first suit. Pandurang, had claimed and asserted his exclusive possession over the suit land and denied Parvatabail 's right to bequeathed part of the suit land by a Will. On these assertions, Pandurang, sought a decree to declare his exclusive ownership over the suit property. The another relief in the first suit was, that a Will executed by Parvatibai on 12/8/1986 bequeathing 1/3rd area of the suit property to Balkrishna Gurav (Defendant No.1 therein) and two others, was illegal. The first suit was dismissed on 9/4/2010 and the decree was confirmed in second appeal by this Court on 31/1/2018.