LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-159

GOPAL GANESH PATIL Vs. SUDAMBADHU PATIL

Decided On April 12, 2004
GOPAL GANESH PATIL Appellant
V/S
SUDAMBADHU PATIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. Magre, Adv. holding for Shri. R. B. Raghuwanshi, Adv. for petitioner and Shri, J. R. Shah, Adv. for respondent No. 16.

(2.) THIS petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), nandurbar below Exhibit 81 and 86 in regular Civil Suit No. 85/1991. It seems that the present petitioner is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. It seems that the plaintiff has filed R. C. S. No,85/1981, in the Court of Civil Judge junior Division, Nandurbar, seeking specific performance of the agreement, which is referred to, in the body of the plaint. By way of consequential relief, appointment of Court commissioner for execution of the document of sale as well as possession of the suit property, with mesne profits is also sought for. By way of alternative relief, the plaintiff has also sought refund of earnest money. The defendants, in response to the suit, filed their written statements. It appears that the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have filed their written statement on 27-11-1981. The defendant no. 11 has filed separate written statement on 24-11-1985. It seems that the contention is raised in the written statement by defendant no. 11. especially in para No. 8, regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court. According to the defendant No. 11, the original defendants nos. 1 to 10 are residing at remote villages situated in state of Gujarat. Defendant No. 11 has also stated in his written statement that defendant Nos. l to 10 are closely related to defendant No. 11. According to the contention of the defendant No. 11, the suit property is being cultivated as a tenant by the defendant No. 11 since 1974-75 and the rent of the suit property is Rs. 1200/- per year. In short, the defendant No. 11 claims to be a tenant in the suit property.

(3.) THE written statement filed by defendant Nos. l to 7, does not refer to any such tenancy of defendant No. 11.