SAROJ Vs. SAU SHOBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this first appeal the original defendants have challenged judgment dated 20/12/1991 delivered by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola in special civil suit No. 129 of 1988 instituted by the present respondent along with her deceased mother. The suit was for possession of the suit property and also for injunction. Plaintiff No. 1 was mother of present respondent. Both mother and daughter stated that Dr. Keshaorao Tunkikar expired leaving behind them as heirs and he had no ancestral property. Parents of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Keshav's wife had their property at Savargaon and after their death plaintiff No. 1 inherited that property. By selling the said property, she raised money and with the assistance of that money her husband Keshaorao purchased the properties mentioned in plaint paragraph No. 2. The plaint further states that family of Keshaorao had close ties with Telkar family and in fact both families were residing together. On 03/7/1978 defendant No. 1 Madhukar was claimed to have obtained Will deed from Keshaorao when Keshaorao was not in disposing state of mind and he was also addicted to liquor. Plaintiffs contended that after death of Keshaorao, on the basis of that Will, defendants were trying to grab the property of Keshaorao. Keshaorao expired on 24/3/1983 and thereafter the mother and daughter filed proceedings for permission to sue as indigent persons. Said permission was granted and then proceedings were registered as special civil suit No. 129 of 1988. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining them from collecting rent from tenants and also for recovery of possession of suit property. By filing written statement, defendants (present appellants) accepted cordial relation but denied ancestral nature of property or also challenge to Will. They contended that house and plot No. 39/7 was given by said Will to Ravindra son of defendant No. 1 while plot No. 39/A was given to defendant No. 4 Ashok. This plot is mentioned as 31/1 in written statement. They further stated that plot No. 39/10 was also given by Keshaorao to defendant No. 1 and about it litigation was pending. They stated that Will was perfectly legal and valid.

(2.) ON the basis of these pleadings trial Court framed issues at Exh. 48 and while delivering judgment answered the same. Those issues and findings thereon are as under :

(3.) ADVOCATE Shri Mehadia has basically raised three contentions. His first contention is that the property has not been shown to be purchased by Keshaorao through funds provided for by his wife Annapurnabai. He states that Annapurnabai did not enter witness box and details of properties owned by her parents at Savargaon are not brought on record. He further states that sales of those properties, if any, executed by Annapurnabai or her parents are also not proved. He points out that trial Court has relied upon only one document Exh. 94 to conclude that parents of Annapurnabai had 11 acres of land at Savargaon which later on was inherited by Annapurnabai. He contends that coupled with this, there is one sentence in evidence of Madhukar, wherein Madhukar accepted that on one occasion he had fetched Annapurnabai from Savargaon. He contends that this evidence is not sufficient to show the nature of properties purchased by Keshaorao and also to prove that Keshaorao was not entitled to deal with those properties as his own. He further points out that nobody proved Exh. 94.