TUKARAM DHONDI TAKAMARE Vs. BALABAI NAIGU TAKAMABE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued for an injunction against defendants restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs or their men in the enjoyment of the plaint land. It was alleged that the plaint land belonged to plaintiff No. 1, and was in her vahivat; that her husband held are enjoyed the land as remuneration for his services as Sauadi; that defendant No. 1 had no right to it; that the services were recently stopped and the land shown in attached Sanadi land; that the Khata was changed to the name of plaintiff No. 1; and that full assessment was collected from her.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by their written statement contended that the plaint land was assigned for Sanadi services and was in the possession of defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 1 had worked therein; that the plaintiffs were not in possession of it; that the land was the ancestral land of the family; that Lingoo and his brothers, Sakharam and defendant No. 1 divided the land; that Lingoo was being paid Rs. 20 for his services as Sanadi by his brothers; that on his death in 1907 defendant No. 1's son Kallappa was appointed a Sanadi by Government and was given the whole land for his remuneration by Government; that Kallappa got no money for his remuneration; that the services were stopped in 1911; that full assessment was being collected from Kallappa after the land was attached; that Kallappa performed the services whenever necessary till his death in 1914; that since then defendant No. 1 performed the services whenever necessary; that as the land was Sanadi whoever performed the services was the owner of the land; that the land became Kallapa's as the services were stopped when he was performing them; that thereafter defendant- No. 1 was the owner as he performed the services; that after Sakharam and Lingoo died in 1907, Sakharam's son, Rama, and Lingoo's widow Balabai (plaintiff) began to reside in defendant No. 1's house; that plaintiff began to manage the affairs of the family and took care of Rama; and that as she was the elderly person in the family and was managing the affairs defendant No. 1 consented to the change of Khata to her name.

(3.) The first issue was: "Dues plaintiff prove that she has possession of the suit land ?" That was found in the affirmative. It is unfortunate that a further issue was not raised, whether defendants proved that they had title to the land because it would be open to the defendants in a suit of this character to resist an injunction being passed against them if they could show that the plaintiff in possession asking for an injunction had no title.