JANABAI Vs. NARAYAN V JOSHIRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this revision application against a concurrent order passed by both the courts dismissing their application for an interim injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 7 from taking possession of the suit property from them.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that one Madhavrao Joshirao was the owner of a house bearing C.T.S. No. 2728 situate at "A" Ward Kolhapur. Bapu Gopal Waikar was a tenant of the said house. The petitioners in this revision application are the heirs of Bapu. By a registered deed of mortgage dated July 7, 1926, Madhavrao mortgaged the house to Bapu Waikar to secure repayment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The mortgage was a possessory mortgage. The mortgage was liable to be redeemed after a period of fifteen years. Madhavrao died sometime in the year 1927 and after his death Laxmi Bai, respondent No. 8, became the owner of the property as his only heir. She filed a regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1943 against Bapu for redemption of the mortgage. The said suit was compromised near about the year 1947, and under the compromise decree Bapu Waikar was to give possession of a certain portion of the suit house to respondent No. 8 and was to remain in possession of the remaining portion during his life-time. Bapu Waikar did not hand over possession to respondent No. 8. She, therefore, filed another suit, being regular Civil Suit No. 548 of 1951, against Bapu Waikar for possession. The said suit was also compromised in the year 1952. Under the compromise decree Bapu Waikar accepted respondent No. 8 as the owner of the entire suit house and that he was to remain therein as a tenant during his life-time. It is also alleged that Bapu Waikar was to execute a rent-note in favour of respondent No. 8 and the rent payable was Rs. 14/- per month. Their case further is that it was also agreed that four Khans of the house should be given to respondent No. 8, as and when she comes to reside in the house and if she so comes and such possession is given to her, Waikar would not be under an obligation to pay any rent to respondent No. 8. However, Waikar never gave possession of the four Khans to respondent No. 8 and continued in possession of those four khans as a tenant.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 filed a Civil Suit No. 50 of 1961 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, for possession of the suit house against respondent No. 8 and Bapu Waikar. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court inter alia holding that respondent No. 8 had become owner of the house by adverse possession.