GANGADHAR PANDHARI HARDE Vs. UTTAM PANDHARI HARDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who failed in both the courts below has preferred this appeal. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The facts shorn of details are as under - The property in suit was acquired by Pithuji . the grandfather of plaintiff and defendant no.2 Bhaskar. Since it was so acquired by Pithuji, it was his self-acquired property. Out of love and affection said Pithuji in the year 1957 relinquished the entire land in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.2 and their names came to be recorded in the revenue record. The father of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 namely Pandhari had consented to such transfer. Pithuji . the grand-father died in 1958. The plaintiff's mother Girjabai is still alive. Pandhari . father of the plaintiff had brought one Parvatibai as his keep in the house. This was against the wishes of Pithuji. The plaintiff submits that it is for this reason that Pithuji relinquished the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.2. defendant no.1 is a son born to said Parvatibai. Pandhari was living separately and was running a cloth and a fair price shop. However, due to the vices, said Pandhari suffered losses in the business and it was difficult for him to manage the family. Pandhari requested the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to give some agriculture land to him for his maintenance. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 agreed and gave the two fields at Manegaon and Makardhokada to Pandhari with a clear understanding that after his death the property would go back to plaintiff and defendant no.2. However, Pandhari executed a partition-deed on 14/12/1987 and transferred the entire land at Makardhokada in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. Similarly, he gifted the property at Manegaon to defendant no.1. Plaintiff submits that both gift-deed as well as the partitiondeed are void and defendants have no right whatsoever in the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a decree of declaration and possession.

(3.) The defendant no.1 filed a written statement and admitted the relationship. Defendant denies that Pithuji had relinquished the property in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.2. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant that there was a partition in the year 1962 between Pandhari and his sons and each one of them is given a separate share in the said partition. In the year 1987, Pandhari had given only that property to defendants no.1 and 2 which had fallen to his share in the partition. He denies that any property was given back by the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to Pandhari and it was to remain with Pandhari till his death and to revert back to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 . It is also his contention that Girjabai had filed Civil Suit No.262 of 1974 for partition against Pandhari, his sons and the purchasers of the property. That suit came to be dismissed and even an appeal came to be dismissed. It was held that there was a partition in 1962 and Pandhari had become the owner of the said property.