YAMUNABAI SHANKARRAO BUDHWANT Vs. SATYABHAMABAI EKNATHRAO BANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been filed by the original plaintiff. She had filed Special Civil Suit No. 258 of 2010 before 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar, for partition, separate possession and injunction.

(2.) Before turning to the rival contentions, note is taken in respect of admitted facts. Plaintiff is the wife of deceased Shankarrao Budhwant. Defendants no.01 and 02 are the daughters of plaintiff and Shankarrao. Shankarrao was the owner of agricultural lands, Gut no.8A admeasuring 11 R, Gut no.8B admeasuring 0.2.28 R, Gut no.205 admeasuring 3 hectares 40 R, Gut no.206 admeasuring 14 hectares 76 R, Gut no.231 admeasuring 0.03 R, Gut no.225 admeasuring 2 hectares 55 R, along with farm houses situated at village Nandur Vihire, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. He was also owner of the house property no.149 area 20 ft. X 10 ft. in the same village. He has also left immoveable properties including car, tractor, bullocks, other cattle, gun and gold. Shankarrao died intestate on 23-08-2010. It is also not in dispute, that defendant no.03 was treated as wife of Shankarrao and was with him till his death. It is further not in dispute, that all the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Shankarrao. (Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the trial Court.)

(3.) With this background, the plaintiff has come with a case, that she was married to Shankarrao around 1942. Thereafter, Shankarrao married to defendant no.03 but that marriage is void ab initio because the marriage between plaintiff and Shankarrao was still subsisting at that time. Shankarrao was suffering from severe diseases. It is stated that he was totally dependent on defendants no.03 to 05 and taking disadvantage of the said situation, defendants no.03 to 05 have played mischief and got their names mutated to some of the properties. Land Gut no.225 was mutated by defendant no.03 illegally in her name on 01-07-1973. It is, however, stated that the said mutation had not given any right, title or interest to her. That application was never signed by Shankarrao. Notices were not given to plaintiff as well as defendants no.01 and 02. Further, land admeasuring 4 hectares 73 R out of land Gut no.206 is shown to have been given in partition to defendant no.03 illegally vide ME No. 1675 dated 04-04-2010. Further, 04 gunthas land from the same land has been shown to have been transferred by deceased Shankarrao in the name of defendants no. 04 and 05 by registered sale deed dated 27-04-1999 for Rs. 25,000/-. However, that transaction is illegal and without consideration, without legal necessity; therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. It is also stated that the said transaction is also hit by the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act. After death of Shankarrao, when plaintiff and defendants no.01 and 02 collected the extracts of the revenue record, they came to know about the mischief played by defendants no.03 to 05 and, therefore, they orally prayed for partition to be effected, to which defendants no.03 to 05 had initially agreed but thereafter they refused. Hence, the suit.