VISWANATHRAO RANGANATHRAO KULKARNI Vs. THE COLLECTOR, JALNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the same decision in Special Civil Suit No 86/1981 decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalna and that is why they are heard together and ate disposed of by a common judgment. They arise out of the following facts:-

(2.) It may be mentioned here that at this moment Regular Civil Suit No. 157/61 was pending in the Civil Court at Jalna in respect of this very land survey No. 86. That was a suit filed by one Narayan against Sonabai. Sonabai died during the pendency of that suit and all the claimants filed their applications in the Civil Court that their names should he brought on record as legal heirs and representatives of Sonabai. The Civil Court at Jalna framed relevant issues and ultimately, held that the present plaintiff alone was entitled to be the legal heir of decased Sonabai, under Sec. 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act and the learned Civil Judge, rejected the claims of other claimants. One of the claimants filed a writ petition before this Court at Bombay but that was also dismissed. Inspite of the plaintiff's attempt to succeed before the Collector on the basis of the judgment in the aforesaid civil suit the Collector did not grant the request of the Plaintiff and that is why the Plaintiff filed this suit for declaration that he is the nearest heir of deceased Sonabai and therefore, he was entitled to possession of the suit-land. Plaintiff claimed that he was claiming through Rangnath who was the father of Sonabai and that is why he was the nearest legal representative of deceased Sonabai. He served the State Government with a notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, filed this suit.

(3.) The State Government, represented through the Collector, resisted ire plaintiff's claim He admitted that Survey No. 86 was belonging to Sonabai. The Collector contended further that he was not a party to the Regular Civil Suit No. 157/61 and that is why that decision declaring the present Plaintiff as the nearest heir and legal representative of Sonabai as not binding upon the Collector. He contended further that unless the Plaintiff obtained a succession certificate or letter of administration he could not claim himself to be the legal heir of Sonabai. In para 7 of the written statement the Collector stated that he was not aware whether Sonabai was the daughter of Rangnath and hence, the positive statement made by the Plaintiff in his plaint that Rangnath was the father of Sonabal is unchallenged. It is a settled law that the plea of want of knowledge does not amount to the denial of the averments in the plaint. The Collector contended further that the Plaintiff had not added other legal heirs of Sonabai as parties to this suit.