KAMAL BABANRAO PASALKAR Vs. VIVEKANAND CHANDRAKANT PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prima facie, the suit appears to be misconceived insofar as the identity of the property in respect whereof it has been filed.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 along with one Maruti, one Bandu and the three heirs of one Shripati were the owners of a larger property, of which the suit property forms a part.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 on the other hand had purchased the said property from defendant No. 2. It is pertinent to note that defendant No. 2 had filed a suit for partition and possession of his 1/4 th share against the other co-owners. A decree had been passed in that suit and his 1/4 th share had been demarcated, partitioned by metes and bounds and handed over to him. This consisted of the suit property.