PARVATABAI BHIVA RAIMANE Vs. ANJANABAI GOVINDA HIWARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 249/94 by District Judge, Jalgaon on 25-2-2000 whereby the first appeal presented by the original defendant came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside.

(2.) Appellants/original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Appeal No. 205/80 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Raver claiming relief of perpetual injunction against defendants thereby restraining them from obstructing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. Suit lands are agricultural properties bearing gat No. 1501/1, 1501/2 and 1501/3 situate at Raver which according to the plaintiffs, are owned by them. According to plaintiffs, the lands were originally owned by their mother Ravakabai w/o Ziparu Hiware who had bequeathed the said property by executing registered Will-deed on 4-7-1976 in favour of the plaintiffs. On her demise, according to the plaintiffs, the property came to be inherited by them. Plaintiffs contend that they are in possession over the suit properties since 4-8-1979 and their names have been mutated in the revenue record on the strength of Will-deed. Defendants having no right, title or interest in respect of the suit property are trying to interfere their possession. Hence, plaintiffs approached the Civil Court seeking relief as stated above.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 is the wife of deceased son of Ravakabai. As per contention of defendant No. 1, she is in possession over the suit property after demise of her husband. As per defendant No. 1, the property belongs to her father in law and was not of ownership of Ravakabai as contended by plaintiffs. Defendants have denied execution of alleged Will-deed in favour of plaintiffs. Defendant further contends that deceased Ravakabai had lost her eye sight and had virtually turned blind. The document alleged to have been executed is suspicious one. Mutation, according to defendant, does not confer any right of ownership upon plaintiffs. Defendant therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.