MANOHAR SAMPAT BAVASKAR Vs. GANGADHAR SAMPAT BAVASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original defendant to challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge- II, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2003 dt. 10-08-2010; whereby the appeal came to be allowed. The said appeal was filed by the original plaintiffs / present respondents No. 1 and 2 for challenging the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 34 of 1996 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Muktai Nagar, Dist. Jalgaon on 24-07-2003; whereby their suit for partition, separate possession and injunction was dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiffs have come with a case that agricultural land bearing Gat No. 15, admeasuring 1 H 47 R situated at village Edlabad, Dist. Jalgaon was owned by their father Sampat. Defendants are their brother and sisters. The said land (which has been more particularly described in para No. 1 of the plaint) was standing in the name of Sampat; however, Sampat was not keeping good health. He was not able to carry out any transaction. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were in service and No. 3 was too young. It was therefore, decided to mutate the name of defendant No. 1 to the suit land as a part of family adjustment. Accordingly, mutation was so effected and defendant No. 1's name alone came to be mutated vide M. E. No. 1091. Defendants No. 1 and 3 are residing in Gut No. 15. Another agricultural land bearing Gut No. 14 as well as Gut No. 15 were transferred in the name of Sampat in the year 1986 by Commissioner, Nasik vide M. E. No. 1393. Gut No. 14 is in possession of plaintiff No. 2. Sampat expired in 1991. Names of plaintiffs and defendants came to be mutated to the land Gut No. 14. However, defendant No. 1 avoided to make mutation in the name of all of them to Gut No. 15 on the pretext that he would carry out the mutation after the partition. The lands have not been partitioned amongst them. They all have equal share in Gut No. 15. Plaintiff No. 1 had gone to village Kurhe on 25-09-1996. He came to know that defendant No. 1 intends to sell the land. Thereafter, all the plaintiffs went to defendant No. 1 and requested him to effect partition. Defendant No. 1 told that he is the exclusive owner of the land and thereby refused to effect partition. Hence, suit has been filed.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 has resisted the suit by filing written statement. It has been denied by him that the suit property is ancestral. According to him, suit property is the self acquired property of his father. He had purchased Gut No. 15 and had dug a well. He has also installed electric pump on the well. His father had made encroachment on Government land Gut No. 14 and thereafter it was regularized by Commissioner, Nasik in the name of plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff's father had executed partitiondeed, but later on it was cancelled and new partitiondeed was executed. In fact, the said deed was executed as per the wish of his father. All of them are possessing and cultivating the lands as per the terms of said partition-deed. Land Gut No. 15 was given to them and Gut No. 14 was divided into 4 parts. He had looked after his father, born the expenses of marriage of his sisters. His father has transferred the land in his name. Plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the same. It is also contended that the suit is not within limitation. On these contentions, they have prayed for dismissal of the suit.