SIDDHI CHHHINILAL DAUBHAL Vs. SURESH GOPIKISHAN PROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1983 decided on 6.3.1990, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhokardan) in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1977 decided on 14.9.1983 was reversed and suit of Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff for injunction was allowed. The trial court had not only dismissed the suit, but even in the absence of Cross Objections, directed the plaintiff to handover possession of suit property to the Defendants within three months from the date of the said judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that, Suresh-Respondent No. 1 herein was the original plaintiff. He filed suit for injunction in respect of six acres portion of land on northern side out of survey No. 15 which in all is admeasuring 35 acres 6 gunthas situated at village Ibrahimpur, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. Plaintiff had purchased the said property for Rs. 2000/= by a registered sale deed dated 8.5.1974 from respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 1) who is father of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2. Since the purchase of the land, he has been in possession of the said property. The appellants and Respondent No. 2 were disturbing his possession and, therefore, he filed suit for perpetual injunction.

(3.) It is necessary to consider the written statement filed by Respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 1) who is father of appellant No. 1 and husband of Respondent No. 2 in some detail, as the same throws much light on the matter. Respondent No. 2 Chunilal in paragraph 2 of his written statement at Exh. 14, admitted that he is husband of present appellant No. 2 and father of appellant No. 1. However, he denied that he was Karta of the family. He further contended that eastern 15 acres land is belonging to and is in possession of his family and he himself, appellant No. 1 and his other sons were owners thereof. The property was cultivated by his sons and wife. He had not sold any portion from survey No. 15 on northern side to Respondent No. 1 plaintiff and that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. There is a well, so also 13 mango trees in the northern portion of said 15 acres land; the land on that side is fertile and its price is more than Rs. 5000 per acre. Respondent No. 2 further contended in the written statement that Dr. Gopikishan, the father of the plaintiff had joint hands with revenue officers and on the basis of false and bogus sale deed had got false mutation entries made in revenue record without notice to the Defendants. No amount was received by Respondent No. 2 from the plaintiff and he had not handed over possession of any land to the plaintiff. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, it is further stated that the father of Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff is running illegal business in his dispensary, like gambling by way of Matka and selling psychotropic drugs. According to Respondent No. 2, he used to go to the dispensary of the Plaintiff's father and there he was addicted to gambling. For 8 to 10 years prior to his written statement dated 4.7.1977, he was not looking after management of his family nor doing any work and everything was being looked after by his wife-appellant No. 2. He had not sold any land. Marriage of his daughter was performed one year prior to said written statement which is filed in July 1977.