BABULAL MANIK SHAIKH Vs. BABU MARUTI SAMUDRAWANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by original plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 18.10.2013 passed in R.C.A. No.193 of 2010 by District Judge-2, Latur to the extent of ignoring the cross objection of the appellant, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2008 passed in R.C.S. No.90/2000 by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ausa, whereby though the suit was decreed against original defendant Nos.2 and 3, it was impliedly dismissed against defendant No.1, though in the suit the relief was sought against defendant No.1 also.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.P. Deshpande for appellant- original plaintiff and learned Advocate Mr. B.R. Varma for respondent No.1- original defendant No.1, who are the original plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr. N.R. Pawade was absent.

(3.) Before turning to the grievance, that has been raised, it is necessary to see that the present appellant-original plaintiff had filed initially the suit for declaration and injunction, however, later on he sought possession of the encroached area shown in A, B, E, F as per para No.8 of the plaint. Plaintiff contended that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.115/1 admeasuring 02H 07R and Sy.No.115/2 admeasuring 01H 65R, which has been more particularly described in para No.1 of the plaint. The said lands are situated at village Talni, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Defendants are the owners and possessors of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.114. It was stated that the land belonging to the plaintiff is separated by survey number bandh which was shown in the map with green line from A-B. A water stream passes through the agricultural land of the plaintiff which is running parallel to the common bandh A-B. It is stated that the common survey number bandh was demolished by defendants on 15.10.1999 and there was an attempt to encroach over the plaintiff's land, and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. However, it is then by way of amendment contended, that the defendants have actually encroached on the portion which has been shown by the area A, B, E and F in the map drawn in para No.8 of the plaint.