LAXMINARAYAN RAMDAYAL GUTANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Joint Judge, Aurangabad, who, in turn, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) The dispute relates to Survey No. 79, admeasuring 27 acres 39 gunthas, situated at Pandharpur to Gangapur Taluqa of Aurangabad district. Admittedly, it is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that there was a partition in his family, including his father, and that the suit land fell to his share in this partition. At Ex. 35 there is a decree dated 15-4-1956, supporting plaintiff's case about such partition and about falling of this land to the share of the plaintiff. It is true that it is a consent decree and it was usual in this part of this State to have such a consent decree.

(3.) While considering the ceiling case of plaintiff's father, the learned Deputy Collector (Ceiling), Gangapur included the suit land in the holding of plaintiff's father and declared plaintiff's father to be the surplus holder. This case about partition in 1956 was put forth before the learned Deputy Collector, but the learned Deputy Collector rejected that theory and proceeded to pass the order that plaintiff's father was a surplus holder.