BHAURAO Vs. RAVSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original defendant. Present respondents are the original plaintiffs who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1015 of 2009 for partition and separate possession against the present appellant - defendant before 10th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before trial Court.]

(2.) The original plaintiffs had come with a case that plaintiff no.02 is the real mother of defendant and plaintiff no.01 is the elder brother of defendant and son of plaintiff no.02. Husband of plaintiff no.02 and father of plaintiff no.01 and defendant Deorao were the owners of agricultural land - Block No.19 (Old Survey No.30/04) admeasuring 02 hectares 31 R situated at village Girner Tanda, Taluka & District Aurangabad. In fact, it was the ancestral property of Deorao. Deorao's father had effected partition amongst his five sons and in the said partition, Deorao had received the suit land. It is stated that after demise of Deorao, the property has devolved on plaintiffs and defendant. In fact, the property was looked after by Deorao, defendant and uncle Ganpatrao Laxman. After death of Deorao, the property was mutated in the name of Gangadhar and Bhaurao to the extent of 08 Ana share each. However, Gangadhar and Bhaurao are same persons i.e. defendant. It is stated that defendant want to grab the suit property on the basis of said mutation entry and he has refused to allot share to plaintiff no.01. Plaintiff no.01 had approached Talathi with a request to make entry in the mutation register in respect of his name. However, Talathi did not listen and, therefore, he had preferred appeal before Deputy Collector, Aurangabad. Deputy Collector by his order dated 01-09-2008 directed Tahsildar to make enquiry in respect of mutation entry no.43 and during the course of that enquiry, Tahsildar directed plaintiffs to bring heirship certificate from the Court. It is stated that as the plaintiffs had approached defendant for effecting partition and he refused, they have filed the suit.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied the relationship. In categorical terms, he has denied that plaintiff no.02 is mother and plaintiff no.01 is his brother. He admitted that Bhaurao and Gangadhar are the same persons i.e. he himself. But it is stated that it was mistake by Talathi to allot 08 Ana share to Bhaurao and Gangadhar. According to him, he is the only heir left by his father Deorao and he is the owner of the suit property. Since 1959-60, he is cultivating the said land in that capacity. It is stated that it is the property of his self acquisition and the plaintiffs have filed false suit.