MADHUKAR BAPURAO TELKAR Vs. SAU SHOBHA SURESHKUMAR NANDE

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 fa123. 92. sxw 4/24 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 : issues FINDINGS

(3.) IN view of its findings, trial Court decreed the suit for possession and directed the defendants to handover vacant possession to the plaintiffs. This judgment and decree is challenged by defendants by filing the present appeal. I have heard Advocate shri Mehadia for the appellants/defendants and Advocate Shri pampalia for respondent/original plaintiff No. 2.