PANDURANG Vs. KERU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.), the original plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 have challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 4th May, 2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.231/2006. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants No.4 to 7. The plaintiffs' claim for partition, separate possession and declaration, that the sale deed dated 5th January, 1988 in respect of Gat No.162 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, was nominal, bogus, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs' share was dismissed. Consequently, the suit was also dismissed. The parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share. The suit properties are agricultural lands and open space, the details of which are as under - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1_LAWS(BOM)11_2014.html</FRM>

(3.) DEFENDANT No.1 Dashrath was cultivating the agricultural lands for and on behalf of joint family. The Plaintiffs requested Defendant No.1 to effect partition. Defendant No.1 however avoided to effect partition. The Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendant No.1 took undue advantage of the situation and entered his name in revenue record in respect of Gat No. 162 to the exclusion of the other legal heirs of deceased Bhaguji. On 5th January, 1988, Defendant No.1 sold Gat No.162 to Defendant No.4. Defendants No.5 to 7 are the sons of Defendant No. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that, the sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.4 on 5th January, 1988, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs' share. Defendant No.1 was not having any right, title and interest to sell the suit property. The sale deed dated 5th January, 1988 is nominal.