DEVIDAS UDHAO GAURKAR Vs. VITHABAI LAXMAN DHENGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the defendants against whom a decree has been passed by the first appellate Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows -

(3.) Arujuna had left behind him the property as described in the plaint paragraph No. 2. The plaintiff submits that it was the Hindu joint family property. There was no partition amongst Arjuna and his sons. The plaintiff being daughter of Zolu has 1/3rd share. The plaintiff, after her marriage, started residing at Padampur and was cultivating land survey No. 20. Although there was no partition, the plaintiff was cultivating survey No. 20 while defendant No. 13 and deceased Udhav were cultivating and possessing the land separately. The plaintiff was in possession until 1984-85. Thereafter, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff, the defendants removed the name of the plaintiff from the revenue record. Defendants No. 1 and 13 had got their names mutated in respect of the suit property. It is alleged that the land has been acquired by defendant No. 15 and a compensation of Rs. 95,612/- has been received by defendant No. 13 without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that she has 1/3rd share in the suit property and therefore, prays for declaration that the suit property is the joint property of plaintiff and defendants, and plaintiff has 1/3rd share in it and defendant No. 15 be restrained from making payment of 1/3rd share. She also prayed for cancellation of employment granted to the other defendants by defendant No. 15.