BHUJANG NATHUJI Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advocate Shri Kshirsagar for petitioner and Advocate Shri Patwardhan for respondents.

(2.) The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 777/1997 (reregistered as Regular Civil Suit No. 269/2001 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saoner) have filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saoner on an application/objection of plaintiff. By the said objection filed on 04.08.2007 the petitioner contended that defendant nos. 2 and 3 [present respondent nos. 2 and 3] have no right to cross examine defendant no.1.

(3.) The petitioner claim that respondent no,.1/defendant no.1 is their uncle and there was partition of ancestral property between their father and said defendant no.1. After getting possession of his separate property, defendant no.1 sold away the same and thereafter encroached upon the property of petitioner and also procured mutation entries in his favour. After completing this exercise, he sold away said property to defendant nos. 2 and 3. After learning about all this, they filed Civil Suit No. 777/1997 for claiming possession of encroached property from defendant no.1 and joined defendant nos. 2 and 3 in that suit as they were in possession and they had no valid title to the encroached portion. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement on 17.2.1998 denying all the allegations. He denied that there was any partition between father of the plaintiff and himself. He further denied any encroachment and he also denied that survey no.142 [new no.37], was given to father of the plaintiff or survey no.145 [new no.32] fell to his share. He contended that these survey numbers including survey nos. 7,8,9 and 10 were recorded in the name of Smt. Manjula wife of Daulat under Bhumiswami rights and were not in the name of father of the plaintiff or of grand father of plaintiff or his father. He further stated that the plaint allegations in relation to sale of land either by Vatsalabai or Ramesh in 1987 have nothing to do with the suit as filed and plaintiff had no right to challenge sale deeds executed in the year 1987 in favour of the defendant no.2 or defendant no.3. He also denied that he took possession of any land, much less the suit land in the year 1987. He also denied that the alleged mischief was detected by plaintiff in the year 1996. For the purpose of this controversy, the other pleadings in his written statement are not relevant, but then it is to be noted that ultimately he prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory cost of Rs. 5000/-.