LAKSHMIBAI Vs. BHOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAKSHIMBAI & Sakku Bai filed a suit against Bhoja & others for possession of house and five annas four pies share in the lands bearing survey Nos. 68,. 72, 73, 74 and 75, and for a declaration of 'shikmidari'. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit property is the plaintiffs' ancestral property and they were in possession till 1352. Fasli Defendant No. 5 is the 'pattedar' and 'hissedar' and in possession to the extent of five annas four pies, Originally, the plaintiffs' grand -father Rama was in possession of the suit property. After him, his son Satwa remained in possession. After Satwa's death plaintiffs' mother Yeshodhabai came into possession and after her the plaintiffs remained in possession; the defendants 1 to 4 who have no right, have dispossessed the plaintiffs on 15th Azur 1352 Fasli and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree.

(2.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statements admitted that defendant No. 5 is the pattedar of the land but denied that plaintiffs or defendant No. 5 have any claim to the suit property and are in possession. It was further alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and plaintiffs' ancestors were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Though plaintiffs had no right in the suit property, but as they had mortgaged the suit property to Nevarthy and Dada, the defendants, in order to avoid litigation, agreed to give the amount of the mortgage to the mortgagees and the plaintiffs in their turn agreed that they would have no claim in the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiffs executed separate 'Ekrarnamas' in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and on the basis of this agreement, the defendants got possession of the suit lands and defendant No. 1's name has been entered as a 'shikmidar' in the revenue records. Plaintiffs in reply to the written statements denied having executed the 'Ekrarnamas' and having agreed to transfer the 'shikmidari'

(3.) IN both these appeals we heard the arguments of the learned Advocates on behalf of the parties. I would first take up the appeal of the plaintiffs which relates to the possession of the lands and 'shikmidari'.