SATYABHAMABAI BALAJI KITEY DECD Vs. PANDURANG MAROTRAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals raise a question as to what is the extent and nature of the right, interest and title of an ostensible owner vis-a-vis a real owner of benami property?

(2.) FACTS involved in these appeals, to some extent, are interlinked. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) ONE Satyabhamabai, widow of Balaji Kitey, the original plaintiff, claimed to be the owner of the suit house. She is stated to have purchased the suit house, vide sale deed, exhibit C-1, dated january 7, 1936, by making payment of a consideration of Rs. 1,600. She had three brothers; (i)Yeshwantrao, (ii) Laxmanrao and (iii) Marotrao. The defendant, Pandurang, is a son of marotrao. According to her, she intended to execute a will bequeathing the suit house to the sons of her brothers. She instructed the defendant, Pandurang, to prepare a will. She alleged that the defendant presented exhibit 35 dated June 21, 1966, representing it as a will drafted according to her instructions and wishes. She, being an illiterate and old lady, without understanding the contents, put her thumb impression.