VYANKAATI RAGHOBAJI PARBAT Vs. VARSHA VINOD DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Adv. R. L. Khapre for the appellants, learned Adv. Anand Parchure for Respondent No. 1 and learned Adv. Ghate for Respondent No. 2. Due to short nature of controversy and urgency of the matter, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal against order is to the order dated 31-8-2004 passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 2004 by Civil Judge Sr. Dn. , Wardha. The facts briefly can be summariesed as under :

(3.) THE respondents before this court are real sisters and the appellants are the purchasers of agricultural field from respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed special Civil Suit No. 34 of 2004 before Joint civil Judge Sr. Dn. , Wardha against respondent No. 2 as defendant No. l and present appellants as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration and setting aside registered sale deed valued at rs. 3,80,000/- and for permanent injunction. The subject matter of the suit is agricultural field having Survey No. 161 area 2 Hectares 88 Are by name Khari located at Mouza : jamni at Hinganghat, Tahsil: Hinganghat, in wardha district. The respondent No. 1 in her suit stated that the respondent No. 2 is her real sister and they are daughters of Keshav son of Janardhan Deshpande who expired on 17-1-2003. She contends that respondent No. 2 got married in the year 1984 and thereafter relations between the respondent No. 1's parents on one hand and in laws of respondent no. 2 on other hand were stained and even today are not cordial. She contends that in 1985 Keshavrao got paralytic attack and he was unable to took after his properties, therefore, on 28-10-1991 he executed registered General Power of Attorney in her favour to enable her to take care of all the properties, therefore, the entire property was under her management and possession. In so far as the suit property is concerned she states that it was standing in the name of respondent No. 2 in revenue records by way of family arrangement created by her father and she was cultivating the said fields and she used to pay the land revenue thereof. She states that on 01-02-1997 her father keshavrao executed Will and bequeathed all property in her favour. She further states that on 26-04-2002 he executed supplementary will in her favour and in it, it is mentioned that the above mentioned Survey Number 161 (Suit field) can be exchanged with respondent no. 2 by her consent. She contends that because of this stipulation in supplementary will she got additional rights in the suit field and right of respondent No. 2 stood curtailed. She contends that therefore, without her consent respondent No. 2 would not have sold the said field to anybody. She also could not have handed over the said suit field to anybody. She contends that she is in possession of the suit field and she cannot be dispossessed by anybody without due process of law. She further contends in her suit that on 15-12-2003 when she learnt that respondent No. 2 is trying to sell the suit field she filed application before the Sub-Registrar requesting him not to register any such document but the said Authority directed her to approach Civil Court. She states that on 16-12-2003 she filed application before the tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, hinganghat and requested them to show her name in possession column in revenue records. She states that accordingly on 20th february, 2004 the Tahsildar inspected the spot and recorded Panchanama and has thereafter shown her possession over the suit field. She moved application for issue of relevant 712 extract showing her possession but Tahsildar did not issue it to her. She contends that inspite of all this, on 16-3-2004 present respondent No. 2 executed and registered sale deed in the name of present petitioners and the said sale deed is not binding upon her. She contends that purchasers made interference with her possession and she therefore, lodged report with Hinganghat police Station on 19-04-2004 but the Police are not taking any action. Hence, she filed suit for setting aside of the said sale deed and for restraining her sister i. e. present respondent No. 2 and original defendant No. 1 and purchasers from interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit field. This suit appears to have been filed on or before 28th April, 2004 along with application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. Temporary injunction sought for is an order restraining the purchasers and her sister from interfering with her possession and from taking forcible possession.