LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-38

PANDURANG DOUTU PATIL Vs. RAMRAO DADU PATIL

Decided On April 24, 2009
PANDURANG DOUTU PATIL Appellant
V/S
RAMRAO DADU PATIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Civil Suit No. 530 of 1983 came to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon, District Kolhapur by three persons namely Ramrao D. Patil, Manjulabai and Rajaram against Pandurang for recovery of possession in respect of the property i.e. land bearing Gat No. 1125, Survey No. 188/1, 188/2 situate at village Latwade, Tahsil Hatkanagale, Dist. Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). These three persons shall hereinafter be referred to as Ramrao & others for the sake of convenience. The said suit was contested by Pandurang and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon by the judgment and decree dated 6th February, 1985 decreed the suit in favour of the three plaintiffs as mentioned aforesaid. Provisions of mesne profit were also made. Pandurang against whom the decree for possession was passed, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1985 in the District Court at Kolhapur against original plaintiffs as well as one person by name Golula w/o Baburao Patil. Said appeal came to be heard and decided by learned 3rd Additional District Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as the learned Additional Distict Judge"). By his judgment and decree dated 4th August, 1989 he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge on 6th February, 1985. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree dated 4th August, 1989 present second appeal was filed by Pandurang, original defendant No. 1.

(2.) Pandurang against whom the suit came to be filed is the present appellant. Ramrao D. Patil, Manjulabai and Rajaram who had filed the suit are the respondents in this second appeal. Said Ramrao died during the pendency of the second appeal and his heirs are brought on record who are respondents Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (c) and who are represented by learned Advocate Mr. Khambete. Rest of the respondents remained absent. They are not represented by any Advocate. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(c) shall hereinafter be referred to as said respondents.

(3.) Few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: