SAVITRIBAI DATTATRAYA LAXMAN Vs. MARTAND DATTATRAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption filed by the plaintiff Marutrao Dattatraya Uplawikar in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Kolhapur. The lands in dispute are R. S. Nos. 293 and 294 which are held in Sub-Inam from the Dumaldar of the village. The plaintiff claimed to redeem the lands alleging that the lands in suit are mortgaged on 15-8-1913 by Appa Raghu and by Babaji who claimed to be the adopted son of Appa. The plaintiff further alleged that Babaji was proved in suit No. 59 of 1921 not to have been adopted by Appaji and Kashibai grandmother of the plaintiff was the heir of Appa on intestacy, and ultimately on the death of Kashibai the plaintiff became entitled to all the property which was held by her, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the suit lands.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants who are the heirs of the legal representative of the original mortgagee and the Dumaldar of the village as well. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not the heir of the original mortgagor, that Kashibai had not inherited the suit property from Appaji Raghu or Babaji Appa; that the plaintiff was not the heir of Kashibai and he had not become the owner of the property by a gift deed from her as alleged by him; that the decree passed in the litigation between Kashibai and Babaji, were not binding upon the defendants; that the plaintiff's claim in respect of R. S. No. 293 was barred as res judicata by reason of certain decision in revenue appeals; that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation Kashibai having failed to file a suit to set aside the order passed in the revenue proceedings; and that the title of the plaintiff was extinguished by adverse possession.

(3.) THE contentions raised by the defendants were negatived by the learned trial Judge and a decree was passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff for redemption. In appeal to the District Court at Kolhapur, the decree passed by the trial Court was substantially confirmed. The first defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.