PRABHUDAYAL Vs. SHANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) ADMIT . By the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally.

(3.) CONSIDERING the impugned order and submissions on behalf of the appellant that this appeal can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, this Court had directed the parties to note that this appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Thus, today, submissions are heard at the bar. This appeal is directed against the order dt.14.8.2014 below Exh. Nos. 1 and 83 in Special Civil Suit No.524 of 2007 passed by 8th Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the Special Civil Suit was instituted with prayers for declaration and permanent injunction as well as compensation against the respondents (original defendants) in the trial Court. The litigation between the parties has long past history since the year 1985. Regular Civil Suit No.492 of 1985 was instituted by one Ramrao Mane against Ramkhilawan etc. for possession as well as mesne profit in respect of the suit property described therein. That suit came to be dismissed on 5.4.1988 and the trial Court had accepted the claim made by the defendants for adverse possession in respect of the land in their possession. Regular Civil Appeal No.183 of 1988 was preferred against the decree but the appeal was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur by Judgment and Order dt.9.9.1996. The controversy was brought before this Court in Second Appeal No.161 of 1997. During pendency of that appeal, parties had entered into compromise whereby they decided to partition the suit property into four portions i.e. A, B, C and D. Portion A was allotted to plaintiff Ramrao Mane, portion B was allotted to Prabhudayal Ramkhilawan Pande (appellant herein), while portion C was allotted to predecessor of Shamsunder Pande and portion D was allotted to Ishwardayal Pande (respondents are legal heirs of said Shamsunder Pande). Thus, in respect of the alloted portions of the suit property, the rights were crystalized as above.