TUKARAM APPA APARADH Vs. SITABAI SATAYPPA CHIGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original defendant no.8 impugns judgment and decree dtd. 26/11/2014, passed by learned District Judge, Jaysingpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2009, thereby upholding judgment and decree dtd. 2/1/2009, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kurundwad in Regular Civil Suit No.57/2001, by which suit filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of suit property has been decreed.

(2.) The respondent nos.1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) instituted Regular Civil Suit No.57/2001 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of land Gut No.1220 situated at village Ghosarwad, contending that suit land was originally owned by one Kallappa. He died leaving behind plaintiffs and defendant nos.1, 2, 6 and 7. The defendant no.2 executed registered sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 to the extent of 1H 60R of suit land in favour of defendant no.8. According to plaintiffs, defendant no.2 had no right to execute sale deed or sale is without legal necessity and same is not binding upon their rights. It is further contention of plaintiffs that decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.43/1997 is collusive and does not bind rights of plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant nos.1 to 7 failed to file written statement. However, defendant no.8 (purchaser) filed his written statement contending that sale deed executed in his favour is for legal necessity. It is pleaded that defendant nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sale with Ramgonda Patil and others. However, said transaction could not be completed. The defendant nos.1 and 2 were required to refund amount to Ramgonda Patil and others, so also to meet family expenses they needed funds. Eventually, defendant no.2 executed agreement to sale dtd. 8/5/1990 in favour of defendant no.8 and later on, executed sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 for satisfying legal necessity.