SUBABAI SHIVRAM PATIL Vs. DHARAMSING JULALSING PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge-2, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2014 (Old No.8 of 2011), dated 30-03-2015, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants came to be dismissed. The said appeal was arising out of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 2012 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yawal, on 16- 11-2010. The said suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed. The plaintiffs had come with a case that the suit properties i.e. block no.01 admeasuring 0.39 R, block no.94/1 admeasuring 1 hectare 60 R, block no.94/2 admeasuring 5 hectare 51 R and block no.206 (old survey no.252) admeasuring 3 hectare 79 R situated at Mauje Wirawali, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon, were belonging to one deceased Julalsing Ramsing Patil. The properties came to him as Inam. Subsequently, they were regranted after enforcement of Inam Abolition Act, 1958. It is stated that after taking possession under re-grant, he expired. He had left behind him, second wife Dagubai, defendant no.01 Dharamsing, plaintiff no.01 Subabai and Nababai, who is stated to be the grandmother of plaintiffs no.02 to 04. Nababai had expired in 1985 leaving behind son Ajabrao, plaintiffs no.05 and 06 and then added defendant no.03. Ajabrao expired in 1999 leaving behind plaintiffs no.02, 03 and 04. It is stated that the possession of the land was taken in 1997 by the legal heirs of Julalsing and the amount was in fact paid by defendant no.01. Thereafter, there was a family arrangement and as per the family arrangement, each one of them was cultivating the land as per the convenience. Block no.01 admeasuring 0.39 R was kept for common use for non-residential purpose. Thereafter, in the plaint, all details of the possession of each of them as per convenience has been given. It is stated that till August 1999, they cultivated their respective share and defendant no.01 did not raise any kind of objection. However, at the instigation of defendant no.02, he gave an application for correction of mutation entry no. 804 and the names of plaintiff and defendant no.03 were accordingly corrected. After the name of defendant no.01 alone was shown in the mutation, it is stated that he started distributing possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. Thereafter, he had entered into an agreement to sell block no.94/2 admeasuring 03 hectares 09 R to defendant no.02 and, therefore, they had filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

(2.) Defendants resisted claim by filing their written statement. Defendants no.01 and 02 did not dispute that the property was granted under the Inam Abolition Act to deceased Julalsing. It is also not in dispute, that the possession was sought by his legal representatives in 1997. They denied the averments regarding family arrangement. According to defendant no.01, he had paid the Najrana i.e. occupancy price and, therefore, those properties are his self-acquired properties. It was stated that mutation entry no.804 was wrongly taken and, therefore, it has been rightly corrected subsequently by the revenue authorities. It was stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest as well as possession over the suit properties.

(3.) With these pleadings, parties went to the suit. Issues came to be framed. Evidence was led by both the parties. After considering the evidence and hearing both parties, the said suit came to be dismissed.