KRUSHNA PANDURANG WANKHEDE AND SITARAM PUNJAJI WANKHEDE Vs. SITARAM PUNJAJI WANKHEDE AND KRISHNA PANDURANG WANKHEDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal from Order No. 14 of 1985 and Civil Revision Application No. 753 of 1985 (now converted as Appeal from Order No. 38 of 1985) have been filed respectively by the original plaintiff and the first defendant against the order passed by the learned Additional Distinct Judge, Akola, restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) The original suit was brought by the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The plaintiffs case was that Survey No. 26/1,7 acres 23 gunthas and Survey No. 25/7 acres 13 gunthas of Morgaon had been taken by him on lease and to Revenue Case No. 1418 of 1963, decided on 30-9-1967 he was declared to be a statutory owner of Survey No. 25. By the order dated 30th July, 1965 in Tenancy Case No. 1/59 of 1964-65 he was declared to be statutory owner of Survey No. 26/1. These two lands came to be amalgamated and it was given Block No. 23. According to the plaintiff the defendants had no right, title or interest in these lands, but they started interfering with his possession. An application for temporary injunction was made to the trial Court and it granted an ex parte injunction in the terms prayed by the plaintiff and after hearing the parties, it confirmed the ex parte injunction on 10-8-1981. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 74 of 1981 taken by the defendants the learned Joint Judge, Akola passed an order vacating the injunction granted by the trial Court on 11-2-1982. In Civil Revision Application No. 178 of 1982 this Court set aside the order passed by the Court of appeal and restored the injunction which had been granted by the trial Court which was decided on 13th August, 1982.

(3.) After a full trial the trial Court dismissed the suit on 16-2-1985. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff, who was the appellant before the District Court and the learned Second Additional District Judge by the order passed on 29th March, 1985 passed the impugned order holding that on the basis of the pleas raised by the defendants and the conclusion reached by the trial Court on merits, the plaintiff would be entitled to a share in the property as it was held to be point family property and that he would, therefore, be entitled to joint possession along with the first defendant.