PARWATIBAI VASUDEO ABHYANKAR Vs. SHRIDHAR NAGESH KAPRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and it arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge at Satara in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1950 which in its turn arose out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Wai, in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1948. The learned Civil Judge, by the decree passed by him on January 3, 1950, directed that the defendants do deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. As regards the future mesne profits, the decree directed that those be determined under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12(c), of the Civil Procedure Code. From the said decree passed by the trial Court, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 went in appeal before the District Court, North Satara, at Satara, and that was appeal No. 67 of 1950. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard that, appeal, confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. From that decree of dismissal of appeal, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) THE properties, which are the subject -matter of this litigation, are Section Nos. 1156, 1157 and 1157A of Wai. The total area of these three properties admeasures 156 sq. yds. The plaintiff contends that the above -mentioned property, viz. Section Nos. 1156, 1157 and 1157A of Wai, is of his ownership. According to the plaintiff's contention, this property originally belonged to one Krishnabai, wife of Pandurang Pawaskar. Krishnabai was in possession and enjoyment of this property. On January 4, 1926, Krishnabai sold this property (S. Nos. 1156, 1157 and 1157A) to Vinayak Chintaman Devarukhkar for Rs. 200. Thereafter, Devarukhkar rented the entire suit property to defendant No. 1. To start with, it was an oral lease and the only rent payable by defendant No. 1 to Devarukhkar was Rs. 9 per year. Since then, says the plaintiff, the defendants who together constitute a joint Hindu family have been in possession of this property as tenants. In course of time, defendant No. 1 executed two rent notes in favour of Devarukhkar and those are exhs. 105 and 106. Exhibit 105 is dated June 30, 1929, and exh. 106 is dated January 25, 1939. The plaintiff says that he purchased the abovementioned entire suit property -S. Nos. 1156, 1157 and 1157 A of Wai -from Devarukhkar under the sale -deed dated June 16, 1947. The plaintiff's case is that, pursuant to that sale -deed, he became the full owner of the suit property. He contends that the defendants are his tenants.

(3.) THE plaintiff's suit was resisted by defendant No. 2 who is the son of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 remained ex parte. Defendant Nos. 2's contentions are that Krishnabai was not the owner of the suit property at all, nor her alleged vendee Devarukhkar was the owner of it. According to defendant No. 2, Devarukhkar was never in possession of the suit property. As Devarukhkar had no interest whatever in the suit property, says defendant No. 2, the plaintiff, who contends that he purchased the suit property from Devarukhkar, would derive no title to the suit property. Then it is the contention of defendant No. 2 that the suit property originally belonged to the joint family of one Ealashet Pawaskar, his sons and grand -sons. This Balashet Pawaskar had two sons, Lakhoba and Chingushet. Chingushet had a son Vasudev alias Bapushet. Lakhoba's wife was Eadhabai. Now, as I have just said, defendant No. 2's contention is that the suit property originally belonged to the joint family of Balashet Pawaskar, his sons and grandsons. Ultimately, this property devolved upon Vasudev alias Bapushet as the sole surviving coparcener of that family. According to defendant No. 2's contentions, Vasudev alias Bapushet was the absolute owner of this property and he (defendant No. 2) purchased this property from him (Vasudev alias Bapushet) under the sale -deed dated August 25, 1947, which was subsequently rectified on October 1, 1948. In pursuance of this sale -deed, says defendant No. 2, he became the full owner of the entire suit property.