BALIRAM SAHEBRAO TIDKE Vs. SAHEBA PATILBA TIDKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs, who have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 207/1982 through their next friend, who is their maternal uncle by name Shri Nanasaheb Bhausaheb Kande. One Saheba Patilba Tidke was the father of the plaintiffs, who was joined as defendant No. 1 and the another Sheshabai wife of Saheba Tidke, the mother of the plaintiffs, was joined as defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 mother of plaintiffs agreed to transfer suit property, in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 8 and hence, aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering and obstructing their possession in respect of lands Survey Nos. 246, 248, 429, 252 and 255 situated at village Jahagir Maha, Taluka Keij, District Beed. The plaintiffs further claimed an injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, father and mother of the plaintiffs, respectively from purchase and sale of the suit properties. It was further an injunction claimed against the defendants, not to change the revenue records. Pending the decision of the suit, the defendant No. 2, mother of the plaintiffs, executed two separate sale-deeds dated 21.7.1983 at Exhs. 121 and 122, transferring the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 8. Hence, by way of amendment in plaint, a relief was also claimed to the effect that the sale-deeds bearing Registration Nos. 2026 and 2027 be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Pending instant second appeal in this Court, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 expired and therefore, as per order dated 20.10.1993 the appeal came to be abated against them.

(2.) This Court admitted the instant appeal on 11.10.1991 on the substantial questions of law formulated in Ground Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the appeal memo of appeal which are reproduced below.

(3.) This matter was heard for two days i. e. on 29.7.2009 and 31.7.2009. On 29.7.2009 itself it was made clear to the parties also to address upon the question of legal necessity to sell the suit properties of minors. Accordingly, arguments are advanced on that point also.