FARUKA BEGUM SAMDALI KHAN Vs. DNYANESHWAR UTTAMRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the two Courts. The appellant is original defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff of suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 474/2000). He claimed declaration of ownership in respect of agricultural land and relief for setting aside sale deed executed by his father in favour of defendant No. 1. Original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the plaintiff i. e. present respondent No. 1.

(3.) The suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 (purchaser) also came to be dismissed. The plaintiff's case before the trial Court was that the suit land was allotted to his share during course of partition between himself, his brothers and the father. He relied upon a mutation entry which was effected and disclosed their partition. He contended that there was a family partition between his father and uncle and at the same time, in February 1984, the share received by his father was divided amongst the brothers and the father. Accordingly, Mutation Entry No. 495 was taken on 24-2-1984. The plaintiff approached the trial Court with a specific case that he became exclusive owner of the suit land and the father had no authority to alienate his property without prior permission of the Court in view of the provisions of the Guardians and Wards act.