SUBHODKUMAR Vs. BHAGWANT NAMDEORAO MEHETRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants are the original defendants and respondents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as original plaintiffs and original defendants.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as follows: THE plaintiffs filed a suit in respect of the suit land admeasuring 24 acres situated within the Municipal Council limits of Chikhali. THE case of the plaintiffs, in the plaint, is that Nimbaji had five sons and the joint family consisted of Nimbaji, his wife and five sons. Nimbaji as a Karta of the family obtained some loan from the District Central Co-operative Bank, Buldhana for the development of Joint Family property. Nimbaji decided to sell 9 acres & 16 gunthas of land for the education of his son and for the marriage of his other son. THE case of the plaintiffs is that when plaintiff no.2 came to know about the intention of Nimbaji of selling the property, he approached him in the month of October, 1974 and requested him to sell some land to plaintiff nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly there was an agreement of sale of the portion of the land for a consideration of Rs.47,000/- and out of this an amount of Rs.27,000/- was given as earnest money to Nimbaji on 13-3-1975 and accordingly an agreement of sale (Ishar Chithhi) was executed and the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit land. On the said date, defendant no.6 Panditrao was not in the Town and, therefore, his signature could not be obtained and, therefore, the sale-deed was to be executed on 31-3-1975. THE plaintiffs paid a balance of consideration of Rs.20,000/- and the sale-deed was executed and registered on 31-3-1975. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 3-4-1975 defendant no.1 alongwith the others entered in the suit field and tried to disturb the possession in respect of area of 2 acres and 2 gunthas on the southern side of the suit land and that this was the subject matter of the suit. A police complaint was filed and thereafter the suit was filed.

(3.) DEFENDANT no.6 filed his Written Statement and denied the contentions of the plaintiffs after he was joined as party defendant when he intervened in the said suit.