VIMAL SHRAWAN BHAJBHUJE Vs. SHANKAR PUSARAM TARALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

(2.) The present appeal is filed by original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2003 by learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha thereby the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.162/1984 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat on 26/09/2003 are set aside.

(3.) The facts can be summarized for filing suit as under: The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2 Shrawan and plaintiff Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of Shrawan. Chindhuji was the father of Shrawan. Chindhuji died in the year 1963. He left about 48 acres of agricultural land including gold, silver and cash. In the year 1966, there was a partition took place in between defendant No.2 i.e. Shrawan and the brother of Chindhuji namely Laxman. As per this partition, Shrawan got 23.50 acres of agricultural land and other movable articles. During the year 1975, defendant No.2 raised money by executing Isarpatra of following field i.e. Khasra No.21/2K, area 5 acres, at mouza Shahalangadi. Plaintiff No.1 however by paying money, saved the suit field by paying off the said Ganpat. On 02/06/1976, the defendant No.2 executed bogus sale-deed in favour of Vithoba Govinda Warghane and took loan from him. Therefore, plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.220/1976 wherein by way of compromise, matter was settled. On 23/04/1973 another bogus sale-deed in respect of Khasra No.12/1 was executed by the defendant No.2 Shrawan in favour of his friend Rajeram who forcibly took possession of the said field and Civil Suit No.33/1978 is filed for possession. In view of all these instances, to prevent the habit of defendant No.2, relatives and friends of defendant No.2 and plaintiffs came together and on 31/03/1977, release deed was executed and registered by the defendant No.2. As per that deed, defendant No.2 Shrawan relinquished his right, title, share and interest in the entire joint family property in favour of plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs applied for mutation.