BABURAO Vs. TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal from Order is by the appellants/ original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs). Regular Civil Suit No.100/2000 filed by the plaintiffs against respondents (original defendants) was for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "subsequent purchasers") purchased part of suit property and thus, they were added in the suit as defendants No.4 and 5. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on 2.9.2013. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.298/2013 before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. In the appeal, plaintiffs filed application for injunction pending the appeal. The application came to be rejected on 18.11.2013 and hence, the present Appeal from Impugned Order against rejection of Temporary Injunction application.

(2.) Original plaintiff No.1 Baburao Namdeo Nalwade expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are on record. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are his children. Defendant No.1 Tukaram Keshav Nalwade, defendant No.2 Bajirao Sonu Galande and defendant No.3 Kondabai Sonu Galande also expired during the pendency of the suit and their legal representatives were brought on record. I will refer to these original defendants No.1 to 3 as "defendants". The family tree as recorded by the trial Court in its judgment dated 2.9.2013 shows these parties claiming inheritance from Bhimabai w/o Rama. It appears, Bhimabai had four daughters, Parubai, Sarubai, Krishanabai and Thakubai. Plaintiff Baburao was son of Thakubai while deceased defendant No.1 Tukaram was son of Parubai and deceased defendant No.2 Bajirao was son of Sarubai. Deceased Kondabai was daughter of Sarubai. Judgment of the trial Court shows that, the original plaintiff No.1 brought the suit claiming that suit property situated at Wangdari, Taluka Shrigonda came to him while other properties had gone to Sarubai and Parubai. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants never resided at Wangdari. It was claimed that, for last about 50 years the suit property was in possession of plaintiffs. Suit property is in possession of plaintiffs and names of defendants remained in the ownership column. Suit was amended and the plaintiffs contended that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are subsequent purchasers from defendants during pendency of the suit. In spite of the sale deeds, the possession of suit property is with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that, the sale deeds executed in favour of subsequent purchasers are not binding on the plaintiffs.

(3.) The judgment of the trial Court further shows that, stand taken by the defendants in written statement was that, all the heirs of Krishnabai and Thakubai had not been made party. The properties were of the four sisters. On the death of Bhimabai, there was joint ownership and possession of the four sisters, and after the death of the sisters, it was joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. There was no reason for separate possession of plaintiffs. Original defendants claimed that the suit property is ancestral property of plaintiff No.1 and defendants and they have undivided share in the same. Defendants claimed that, it was difficult to take care of properties by remaining outside the village and so, it was decided that somebody should stay at Wangdari and so, plaintiff No.1 started residing at Wangdari. Defendants and plaintiff No. 1 constructed house in the suit property and they were all jointly in possession. The possession of plaintiffs and original defendants was and is joint.