ANUSAYA BABURAO KALE Vs. BABAI LAXMAN CHORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the original defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing them to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondentplaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on 14/6/1993 on the following substantial questions of law

(2.) The suit property is ancestral. The original holder was Natha, who died leaving behind two sons, Rama and Chandar. The parties claim rights in respect of the suit property through Rama. In the partition between Rama and his brother, Chandar, the suit property was allotted to Rama. Rama had three daughters and three sons. Plaintiff is the widow of one of the sons, Laxman. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the daughters of Rama, and defendant no.4 is the son of defendant no.3. The suit property is part of the property that was allotted to the share of Rama.

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession from the appellants. The plaintiff contended that after the demise of Rama in the year 1950, the property, including the suit properties, was jointly owned by the sons of Rama. The plaintiff further contended that there was a partition amongst the sons of Rama, namely Laxman, Dnyanoba and Tukaram, and the suit property came to the share of the plaintiff's husband, Laxman. She further contended that out of sympathy, Laxman had permitted the appellants to reside in the suit property. She contended that after the death of Laxman, she permitted them to reside in the suit property. The plaintiff vide notice dtd. 1/8/1986 called upon the appellants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the appellants refused to hand over possession, she filed the suit seeking possession.