(1.) The appellant, who is original defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 2012, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 12/10/2022 passed by the learned District Judge-4, Jalna i.e. the learned First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2017, setting aside the judgment and order dtd. 30/6/2017, passed by the learned trial Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 2012 filed by the present respondent No.1/plaintiff and remanding back the matter to the learned trial Court with direction to decide issue No.3 afresh. The learned First Appellate Court has also given an opportunity to the plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 to include entire joint family properties in the suit.
(2.) Background facts are as under :-
(3.) Defendant No.1, despite appearance, failed to file written statement, whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit under written statements (Exh.31 and 45) respectively by denying all the adverse allegations made against them. According to defendant No.2 i.e. the present appellant, the suit property is his separate property under partition deed dtd. 5/3/1999. The mutation entry to that effect has also been made in the revenue record. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. As against this, defendant Nos. 4 and 5 vide their written statement ( Exh.37) admitted the claim of the plaintiff by contending that the parties to the suit are having equal share in the suit property, and therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding upon them. They also contended that suit property is not self acquired property of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and no partition had effected in respect of the suit properties among the family members. On the other hand, defendant No.6 also resisted the claim under his written statement ( Exh.33) and came with the case that before purchasing the part of the suit property he had made requisite inquiry. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.