BAKERAO RANGARAO ULHA Vs. RAMKRISHNA RAJARAM KSHIRSAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - original defendant, is taking exception to the judgment in R. C. A. No108/1997 rendered by the additional District Judge, Achalpur on 24-09-2003, in an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree in R. C. S. No. 07/1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, amravati on 25-07-1997, by which he decreed the plaintiff - respondent No. 1s suit, for possession of the suit property bearing Survey no. 173/2 of Mouje Brahmanwada Thadi, admeasuring 4 acres and also declaring that the sale deed executed by Banabai Rajaram kshirsagar in favour of defendant No. 1 and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 pandurang - present respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant, was void and illegal. Needless to say that the appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Ramkrishna had preferred a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by deceased Banabai, in favour of original defendant No. 1 and the sale deed executed by original defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 i. e. present appellant were void. There is no dispute as regards the description of the suit property as stated above. Suffice it to say that Banabai - mother of respondent No. I/plaintiff was in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered document of Vyavastha-patra which was executed by father of plaintiff on 29-01 -1960. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the said banabai had a restricted interest in the suit property and she was not entitled to sell, gift or transfer the suit property in favour of any person, as the same was granted to her by her husband during her life time for maintenance purpose. As such, according to him, Banabai had no legal right to sell the said suit property to defendant No. 1. Consequently, defendant no. 1 had no right to sell the same in favour of defendant No. 2. It is not disputed that the said banabai is dead. With these contentions, the relevant declaration to declare the sale deeds executed by Banabai in favour of defendant no. 1 and defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 were void and illegal was sought. Consequently, plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit property.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1, though appeared did not file any Written Statement, so, he was proceeded in default of W. S. Appellant/defendant No. 2 however resisted the suit by filing Written Statement and claiming that Banabai was in possession of the suit property, as its full owner. He denied that she was in possession of the same by virtue of vyavastha-patra with limited interest. He also claimed the defence of limitation. According to him, the sale deeds which were sought to be declared void, were perfectly legal. He claimed the dismissal of the suit. I need not give the details of the other defences raised by him like non - joinder of necessary parties etc. , considering the short controversy involved in this appeal.