VIJAY SHRIDHAR GHARE Vs. ASHOK NARAYAN SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed challenging Judgment and Decree dtd. 1/4/2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.718 of 2011 by District Judge-16, Pune, confirming the Judgment and Decree dtd. 8/11/2011 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2005. The Appellant is original Defendant No.1 and Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are original Plaintiffs. Respondent No.7 is original Defendant No.2.

(2.) Few facts necessary for disposal of the Second Appeal are that Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant No.2 are real brothers. Plaintiff No.3 is their real sister and Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are legal heirs of their deceased brother Ramesh. These are sons and daughters of deceased Narayan. The suit property stood in the name of Narayan who expired on 4/1/1965. After the death of Narayan Defendant No.2 Suresh became Karta/Manager of the family.

(3.) On 28/1/2002, the Plaintiffs received a notice from the concerned Talathi about proposed mutation entry in the revenue record of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs, thereafter found out that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh has sold the suit properties to Defendant No.1 (present Appellant) under registered sale deed dtd. 8/2/2001. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, started revenue proceedings and ultimately filed the present suit on 28/1/2005. Defendant No. 2-Karta Suresh remained absent despite due service. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, found that Defendant No.2-Karta Suresh had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 (present Appellant) and the said sale deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court found that Plaintiffs are entitled to necessary declaration. The Trial Court further found that the suit properties were not sold for legal necessity/benefit of the family by Defendant No.2 in the capacity of Karta. Under Issue No.7, the suit has been held as filed within limitation. Trial Court declared that Defendant No.2 had no right to sell the suit properties in favour of Defendant No.1 and held that the sale deed dtd. 8/2/2001 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.