PUTALABAI Vs. TATYA SAKHARAM DHERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit for possession of the suit land has been decreed by the trial Court but has been dismissed by the District Court in appeal filed by original defendant No. 1.

(2.) The facts are as follow :- The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Block No. 64, in village Arjunsond. The land formerly belonged to one Aba Hawale who died on 20th November, 1959, leaving behind him his widow Sundrabai (plaintiff No. 3) and six daughters. Two of the daughters, Putalabai and Chingubai are plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The other four daughter are not parties to the suit and I am required to examine the question as to the effect of their non-joinder in the suit. There is no dispute that after the death of Aba Hawale his widow, present plaintiff No. 3 (appellant No 3 before me), was in possession of the suit land and was managing the same. There is further no dispute that her son- in-law, defendant No. 2, (respondent No. 2 in these proceeding) was living with Sundrabai herself. There is no dispute at least at this stage that the said defendant No. 2, Dattu, son- in-law of plaintiff No. 3, Sundrabai was having no occupation except that of agriculture labourer and perhaps that was the reason why he and his wife Malanbai, one of the six daughters of Sundrabai, were staying with Sundrabai.

(3.) On 5-3-1955, Sundrabai and four of her six daughters namely Bhamabai, Malanbai (wife of defendant No. 2) Rukminibai and Simantabai executed sale-deed, Exhibit-38, in favour of Tatya Sakharam Dhere, defendant No. 1 (present respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2000/-. The sale deed was in respect of one half of undivided share in suit land. On the same day they also executed another sale deed (which is not on record) in favour of Dattu, defendant No. 2, as regards the remaining undivided one half share. Not only that the sale-deed is not on record but even the certified copy of the same is not filed and we do not know as to what consideration passed between defendant No. 2 and Sundrabai and her four daughters. This sale-deed is shrouded in some kind of mystery which has not quite some bearing upon the genuine character of the sale-deed. This mystery and suspicious character of the sale-deed is further enhanced by the fact that on 6-5-1966, said defendant No. 2, Dattu, executed a sale-deed Exhibit-37, in respect of the said undivided one half share in suit land in favour of defendant No. 1. For all practical purposes the defendant No. 1 became the owner in respect of the entire suit land with effect from 5-2-1965. The question is as to whether he got any title to the same.