RAMESH HARSING PAWAR Vs. VASUBAI BRIJLAL PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original defendants no.02 to 05, challenging the concurrent findings and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2007, passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahada, District Dhule, dated 20- 03-2010, confirming the decree passed in the suit, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2010, by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Shahada, District Nandurbar, dated 15-02-2016.

(2.) Present respondent no.01 - plaintiff had filed said suit for partition, possession and permanent injunction. She had claimed to be widow of one Brijlal Pawar, who was the brother of one Harsing and defendant no.01. Defendants no.02 to 05 are the legal representatives of deceased Harsing. Defendant no.06 is the step-daughter of plaintiff. One Waman Ravan Pawar, who was the father of Brijlal, defendant no.01 and Harsing, left ancestral property agricultural land bearing Gut no.20 admeasuring 03 hectares 39 R, Gut no.111 admeasuring 01 hectare 25 R, situated at Kusumwada and agricultural land bearing Gut no.48 admeasuring 04 hectares 29 R, situated at village Akaspur. House property that was left was Grampanchayat house no.90 situated at Kusumwada, Taluka Shahada. Plaintiff claimed that she has 1/3rd share in the same; there was no partition between Brijlal, who expired on 14-04-2001, and his brothers. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the trial Court.]

(3.) Defendants no.02 to 05 resisted the claim by filing written statement. They denied the relationship between the plaintiff and deceased Brijlal. It was contended that one Pilibai was the wife of Brijlal and defendant no.06 is the daughter of Brijlal and Pilibai. In fact, Ravan, who was the great grandfather of them, had three brothers and they have also share in the property. They have given separate genealogy as per schedule 'A' and it is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of legal heirs of one Jyadya. They prayed for dismissal of the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Brijlal.