BHIKAN ASARAM Vs. SK. AKHTAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff No.2 challenging the concurrent Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.258/2008 by learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad dated 20.02.2017, thereby the appeal filed by the present appellant along with other appellants came to be dismissed and thereby confirming the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.747/1992 by learned 10th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad on 28.07.2008.

(2.) The said suit was filed by the original plaintiffs including the present appellant for declaration of sale deeds dated 07.12.1991 and 23.03.1992 as null and void, recovery of the possession of suit property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from obstructing possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The land in dispute was Sy.No.252/1 to the extent of 7 Acres 19 Gunthas situated at village Harsool, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. Plaintiffs claimed that Gat No.252 was in all earlier admeasuring 36 Acres 36 Gunthas, which was owned and possessed by one Chhoteram. Out of that, most of the portion was acquired by the Government for construction of dam and only 7 Acres 18 Gunthas land remained. The genealogy has been given in the plaint and the plaintiffs contend, that after demise of Chhoteram the said land devolved upon the heirs left by Chhoteram. According to the plaintiffs, it was the joint family property. It remained in the name of Tarachand, who has also received the compensation for the acquisition of the land. However, other persons filed application for distributing the compensation amongst the heads of the family and accordingly the distribution was made. It is then stated that, taking disadvantage of their names entered to the revenue record, defendant Nos.5 and 6 transferred the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4, by way of those two sale deeds. It is stated that those sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement and denied all the averments in the plaint. It was denied that the suit property was a joint family property. It is stated that after the acquisition of some of the portion from Gat No.252, the ancestors of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 became the owners and possessors of the suit property. Plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property, so also, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable in the form, the plaint has been produced. It has been contended, that at the time of acquisition it was mutually settled between the ancestors, that whatever compensation amount would be received by Dharamchand and would be settled in between legal heirs of Khemchand and Ramchand. Accordingly, the settlement has been arrived at and the ancestors of Khemchand and Ramchand have become owners of the suit property. They had every right to transfer the suit property, accordingly, they have sold the property to defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are stated to be the bona fide purchasers for value without notice. It was also contended that since the plaintiffs have taken inconsistent pleas, they cannot seek injunction against co-owner, as well as seek ownership over the property. It is also stated that the suit is barred by limitation and the ancestors of defendant Nos.5 and 6 have become owners by adverse possession.