KAUSLYABAI BHAOORAO BADHE Vs. BABU NENA BANDHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Party No. II have filed this Revision Application, challenging the order of the Additional Session Judge, whereunder he set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed that Party No. 1, who are respondents, is entitlad to possession of Survey No. 5 situated at village Ripur in Tahasil Patoda, District Bhir.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under ; The dispute arose between party No. 1 and party No. 2 in respect of possession of Survey No. 5, therefore, the head constable of Shirpur Police station, Tahasil Patoda lodged a report, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued preliminary order on February 26, 1971 and called upon party No. 1 and parry No. II to lead evidence of their respective possession over Sur No. 5 Party No. 1 respondant Babu claimed Sur. No. 5 as his ancestral property and further assested that he was in possession of Sur. No. 5. According to him, Party No. II filed a civil suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in the Court of civil Judge, Junior Division, Patoda. In that proceeding, the application for injunction, which was granted on June 31, 1971 given by parly No. II was rejected. He further asserted that the revenue record would show that his name is entered even in the column of cultivation, and that he was in personal cultivation.

(3.) Party No. II contended that party No I's father and uncle had obtained a loan of Rs. 1500/- and in security of that loan had handed over possession of the suit land to Party No. II and thus, for some years his name appeared in the revenue record The parties are related to each, other Thereafter, Party No I in collusion with the Revenue Officer got certain entries made, Party No, I had sent a letter to Party No II in which it was revealed that the suit land was owned by Party No. II and had asserted that he was in cultivation