VASANT BAJIRAO MORE Vs. RAMESH KAKA MAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(2.) Order, rejecting defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, for recalling the witness; is under challenge.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 5 ("Plaintiffs", for short) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 2009 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadegaon, District : Sangli, seeking declaration of the title and in alternative for redemption of the mortgage of the suit property, wherein petitioners are defendants. Plaintiffs' case is that the suit property was owned by their grandfather Nana Appa Mahar and after his demise one of his son's name Mr. Kaka Nana Mahar was entered in the revenue record vide mutation entry no. 1785. It is plaintiff's case that the defendants being from upper class of the society, in collusion with revenue office got their names entered in the revenue record, as owners, on the basis of sale deeds. The cause of action arose, when the defendants obstructed the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land and thus suit was instituted in June, 2009. The petitioner and his father, being defendants in the suit filed a Written Statement on 20.03.2010. They denied the plaintiff's case and would contend that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs had executed deed of a "mortgage by conditional sale" on 22.01.2015 of Survey No. 271/6 on condition that on default in payment of mortgage money, the sale shall become absolute. The defendants would also contend that predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs had executed another deed of "mortgage by conditional sale" on 01.01.1955 in the suit land bearing Survey No. 272/3 on condition that on default of payment of mortgage money (Rs. 81/-) on certain date (i.e. within five years) the sale shall become absolute. Petitioner/ defendants would further contend that in terms of both the Deeds, they became absolute owners of the suit property and since 1955 they are in possession of it. It is contended that in the year 1965 there was robbery in their house and since then, these two Deeds were not traceable. The Written Statement was filed in February, 2010.