KHURSHID BANO Vs. MOHD AFSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal is at the instance of the original plaintiffs.

(2.) A few facts may be narrated thus - The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Mohd.Ayub s/o Pyar Mohammad. Mohd.Ayub owned the property described in the plaint namely Plot No.171/1 on Nazul Sheet No.21/C at Shegaon. The said plot was purchased by Mohd.Ayub in the year 1951 by registered sale-deed. There was a small structure in a dilapidated condition on the said plot. Mohd.Ayub was for some time running a floor mill in the said house. Later he shifted to Bombay and stopped running the said floor mill. He died in the year 1965. The plaintiffs, who are the heirs of Mohd.Ayub also shifted to Bombay along with him. Defendant no.7 is also one of the heirs of deceased Mohd.Ayub. Each of the plaintiffs and defendant no.7 has 1/7th share in the suit property. Deceased Mohd.Ayub had a real brother by name Mohd.Samsher. He was, however, residing at Shegaon only. Mohd.Ayub had allowed said Mohd.Samsher and defendant no.7 to use the said property. Mohd.Samsher, however, had no right, title or interest in the said property. It is alleged that defendants no.1 to 6 started showing antagonistic attitude. Hence, the plaintiffs served notice upon them calling upon them to handover the possession. Notice was also served to defendant no.7 to partition the said property. She acceded to the request of the plaintiffs. Defendants no.1 to 6, however, failed to vacate the premises. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession.

(3.) Defendants no.1 to 6 resisted the suit. They admit the relationship between the parties. They, however, deny that the said property was purchased by Mohd.Ayub and that he was the owner thereof. They also deny that he was running a floor mill there. They also deny that they are occupying the premises as licensees of Mohd.Ayub. It is their contention that Mohd.Ayub had come to Shegaon when his father Pyar Mohd. died. At that time he relinquished his right in the property in favour of defendants no.1 to 6. As a result, it is the contention of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintenable.