Deccan Education Society, Pune

Estd. 1884

D.E.S. Shri. Navalmal Firodia Law College

Lokmanya Tilak

National Appellate Moot Court Competition

5th Edition

1st & 2nd Feb. 2013

Paper-book for Civil Appeal

DISCLAIMER

The problem is based on real life case and it’s a close adaptation of

the same. Due care has been taken to maintain the privacy and

secrecy of the parties. The case is taken purely for academic

purposes. The organizers shall not be liable or responsible for any

unintended or accidental error in formulation of the case.

CIVIL PAPER BOOK

Civil Appeal No. 402/2006

Reg. Civil Suit No. 417/2004

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1 Judgement 1 – 13

2 Affidavit on Plaintiff 14 – 20

3 Deposition of Defendant 21 – 23

4 Amended Plaint 24 – 30

5 Written Statement Defendant 1 and 2 31 – 35

6 Written Statement Defendant 3 36 – 37

7 Written Statement Defendant 5 38 – 39

8 References 40

( 1 )

Spl. Civil Suit No. 417/2004.

Presented on 6/4/2004. Registered on 6/4/04. Decided on 7/1/2006.

Duration 1 Y. Ms.1D

IN THE COURT OF JT. CIVIL JUDGE SR.DN. PUNE AT PUNE.

Exh. 208

1 Shri. Shrinivasrao Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age 61 yrs. Occupation – Agriculture

2 Shri. Rajaram Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age 58 yrs. Occupation- agriculture r/at

Mahur. Tal. Purandar. Dist.Pune. at post

Saikrupa building 2nd

floor Ganeshwadi.

Kalyan

3 Shri. Gopal Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age 54yrs. Occupation-Agriculture

And services, r/at Mahur , Tal.Purandar

Dist.Pune.

At post Dadar Saitan Chowki, police line ... Plaintiffs

Gokhale road, Dadar, Mumbai 28.

4 Shri. Bhimsen Sudhakarrao Jadhav.

Age 51yrs. Occupation-Agriculture

5 Shri. Sonal Naik

Age 47 yrs. Occ.-Agriculture and Household,

r/at Nimbore, Tal. Phaltan Dist. Satara.

( 2 )

6 Sou. Monal Khade, age- 44yrs

Occ-Agriculture and household , r/at Veer , Tal.

Purandar, Dist Pune

7 Sou. Vidya Londe, age 39 yrs

Occ-Agriculture and household r/at Dombivilli

Mohan bhaiyya’s Chawl ,Mumbai . ... Plaintiffs

Vs

1. Shri Keshavrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav age 70yrs

Occ-Agri. r/at Mahur,Tal .Purandar, Dist-Pune.

2.

Sou. Ulkabai Sampatrao Jadhav

Age 68yrs Occ-Agri and household r/at Humgao

Tal Javali ,Dist Satara.

3.

Madhavrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav, age 65yrs, Occ-Agri

r/at Mahur ,Tal.Purandar,Dist.Pune.

for himself and manager of H.J.F.

4.

Sou. Sitabai Vinayakrao Shinde, age 62 yrs,

Occ-Agri, And household r/at Rananda ,Tal.Man,

Dist.Satara.

5.

Shri.Rajesh Suryakant Patil, age30yrs,

Occ-Agri , r/at Sawwad Tal.Purandar,Dist.Pune.

...

Defendants

Suit for Partition, Separate Possession and for Injunction

( 3 )

JUDGEMENT

(Delivered on 7/01/2000)

1. It is a suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s share and injunction

restraining the defendants from alienating the property till the partition is effected by metes and

bounds.

2. In brief the case of the plaintiff is as under:

It is contended by the plaintiff that the suit properties more particularly described in para

1A and 1B of the plaint were the Inam Lands. Common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendant

namely Shrinivasrao @ Abasaheb was the village Patil of the village named Mahur Tal.Purandar

,Dist.Pune, therefore the suit properties were given to him in lieu of his service. After the demise

of Abasaheb his elder son Bhaskarrao became the police Patil. Bhaskarrao was the Police Patil till

his death. Defendant no 1-3 are the legal heirs of deceased Bhaskarrao. Late Shrinivasrao was

having another son namelySudhakarrao. He died on 25/2/8 leaving behind plaintiff as his legal

heirs. Thus the plaintiffs and the defendants are coming from the family of vatandar.

3. It is contended that late Shrinivasrao was not the owner of the suit properties. He was

holding the suit property in lieu of his service. Therefore suit lands were impartible. As such late

Shrinivasrao had no right to partition it amongst his two sons. Therefore the alleged partition had

the consequently mutation in revenue record i.e. the revenue entries no 773 and 774 are ab initio

void. Therefore the so called entries are not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. By such

mutation defendant no.3 would not get any title.

4. It is contended that the Patil Inam Vatan Abolition Act came into force in the year 1962.

After the abolition of the Inam Vatan defendant no 3 Yadav had deposited certain amount to the

government in respect of the Gat .No.491 and Gat .No.492. Therefore these lands were re-granted

to the defendant no.3. Accordingly the name of the defendant is recorded in the record of rights

vide mutation entry no.192. Thus defendant became the owner of the three lands. Similarly the

plaintiff’s father had also paid Najrana to the Government and got suit land under Gat No. 484

re-granted in his favour. Therefore it is contended that the suit properties are impartible.

Shrinivasrao had no right to partition these properties. After the abolition of the Inam Vatan the

property tenures for the benefits of the joint family. As such neither the defendant no.3 Yadav nor

the plaintiff’s father Sudhakarrao claimed exclusive rights to the suit properties. The plaintiff’s

father and the defendant died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

Therefore the daughterss of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao are made parties to the suit. It is

contended that before the commencement of the Inam Vatan Abolition Act the partition of

properties was not permissible. The partition of other joint family has taken place. Thus suit is

filed for partition of the Vatan lands. Defendant No.3 is trying to take disadvantage of his name

appearing in the Record of Rights and therefore it is just and

( 4 )

necessary to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit properties, till the partition is effected

by metes and bounds. Hence this suit.

5. After filing the suit the defendant no 3 has sold the land under Gat No.491 to the

Defendant No.5 by registered sale deed dt.30/12/98 though the order of Injunction was in force.

Therefore the plaintiff amended the suit by filing an application at exn.169. it is contended by the

plaintiff that the alleged sale or land G.No.491 is ab initio void and not binding on the interest of

the plaintiff.

6. Defendant no.1 and 2 have filed their common written statement at exn.34. It is

contended by them that the suit is not bonafide and is false. It is not maintainable in the given

form. The suit is also hit by law of limitation. Plaintiffs have not impleaded all,the necessary

parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is hit by the non joinder of necessary parties. It is the suit for

partition of joint family properties and therefore plaintiff ought to have impleaded all other

properties in suit. However, plaintiff has not impleaded all other joint family property in the suit

and therefore, suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is specifically denied that, the

suit properties were not partible. Therefore, the mutation entries No 773 and 774 are void ab

initio. It is also denied that partition of the suit properties was not possible and therefore after

regrant the partition is possible and the suit is maintainable. It is further contended that late

Shrinivasrao partitioned the joint family property between his two sons in the year 1982. As per

the partition late Sudhakarrao in his handwriting had given application to the revenue

authority which bears the signature of Sudhakarrao as well as Bhaskarrao and after following due

procedure the Competent Revenue Authority certified the mutation entry No773 and 774 on

8/7/1932. The said mutation entry is acted upon. Since then the revenue khata of Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao is separately maintained. After demise of Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao their legal

heirs are brought on record. Neither plaintiff nor Sudhakarrao challenged the said mutation entries

in the present suit as well. Even in the present suit also the plaintiffs have not claimed declaration

in respect of the said mutation entries. In the partition of 1932 the land Gat.No 491 and 492

alongwith other lands were allotted to the share of Bhaskarrao. Similarly Gat.No.484 along with

other lands were allotted to the share of Sudhakarrao. As per the partition the mutation entry No

773 and no 774 were mutated. Thus right from 1932 neither Sudhakarrao nor his heirs have any

right, title or interest in the property that was allotted to the share of the late Bhaskarrao and now

recorded in the name of defendant.

7. It is also contended that land Gat No7.13.21 and 24 were allotted to the share of

Bhaskarrao in the partition in the year 1932. These lands were sold to the son of the Plaintiff No.2

namely Hansraj on 22/9/1927 which is later on in the year 1978 sold to the plaintiff No.4. In the

year 1953 Bhaskarrao had purchased one open land in the village under a registered sale deed.

Sudhakarrao is an attesting witness of the said document. Similarly in the year 1945 Bhaskarrao

had purchased land Gatt no 1480 to that sale deed Sudhakarrao is the attesting witness as well.

Thus it is crystal clear from the above said

( 5 )

document that right from 1925 and onwards Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao started residing

separately. In the revenue record separate khatas were prepared. Thus the plaintiffs have no right

to claim any right, title and interest in the suit property which is standing in the name of the

Defendant No. 3.

8. It is further contended that land Gatt no.491 and 492 are re-granted to Defendant No3.

Defendant No3 Yadav had paid Najrana to the Government. Accordingly these lands are recorded

in the name of the Defendant No 3 vide mutation entry No 192. Similarly land Gat No 484 is re-

granted to Sudhakarrao who had also deposited Najrana to the Government and therefore these

lands were recorded in the name of Sudhakarrao vide mutation no 184. Thus Defendant No 3

Yadav becomes Absolute owner of the land Gat No 491 and 492.

9. It is further contended that late Keshavrao was the late Police Patil for the period from the

period 1899-1909. He died in the year 1912. During his lifetime his elder son Shrinivasrao

became the village police Patil and held the post from 1909-.The elder son Bhaskarrao became

the village Police Patil and he was the police patil for the period

1930-60. However in the year 1950 late Bhaskarrao was appointed as a Gumasta. Therefore he

worked as a Gumasta for the period 1950-60. In the year 1960 he was separately appointed as

police patil till the year 1974. However he died in the year 1973. Thus plaintiffs have no right,

interest and title in the suit properties therefore suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

10. Defendant No 3 filed his return statement at Exh. No 30. He has also taken similar stance

as taken by the Defendant No 1 and 2. Defendant no 4 though duly served with suit summons she

remained absent therefore the suit was proceeded ex-parte against her.

11. Defendant no.5 has filed his written statement at Exh. No 174. He had adopted the

written statement filed by defendant no 1 to 3. Besides this he has contended that land Gat No

491 was independently recorded in the name of defendant no 3. He was in exclusive possession of

the said land. On 30/12/98 this defendant has purchased land Gat No 491 for valuable

consideration of Rs 3,50,000/- by registered sale deed. On the date of the execution of sale deed

defendant no 3 handed over possession of land Gat no491 to the defendant no5 thus defendant

no5 is in exclusive possession of land Gat no.491. before entering into transactions with

defendant no.3, defendant no.5 had gone through the record of more than 30-40 yrs and came to

conclusion that defendant no.3 is the exclusive owner of land gat no.491 and has right to sell the

said land. Defendant no.3 has not disclosed the pendency of any suit in respect of purchaser

for the value without notice. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no right to challenge the said transaction.

It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs.

12. As per the pleadings of the parties the learned predecessor has framed the following

issues at Exh. 49 and I have recorded my findings thereon as under.

( 6 )

ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Does plaintiff prove that suit property is a

joint family property of the plaintiffs and the

defendants?

In the negative

1A. Does the defendant no.3 prove that there

was already partition in the year 1932?

In the affirmative

1B. Whether defendant proved that they are

sole owners Gat No.491 and 492?

In the affirmative

2. Does Plaintiff prove that they have half

share in suit property?

In the negative

3. Does Plaintiff proves that defendants refuse the partition of the suit property?

In the negative

4. Is the Plaintiff entitled for a permanent

injunction and relief claimed?

In the negative

5. What decree and order? Suit dismissed

REASONS

13. As to Issue No.1 to 4 :

All these issues are inter-connected with each other, hence, they are decided commonly. As per

the order passed by the learned predecessor below Exh. 1, defendants were

directed to lead evidence first. Therefore, defendant, on their behalf examined DW. No.1

Anil Yadavrao Jadhav at Exh.33.

14. DW. No.1 Anil has stated that his father, defendant no.3, Yadavrao is not feeling well,

therefore, he is unable to attend the Court. Therefore, his father has executed Power of Attorney in

his Favour . The Power of Attorney is produced on record at Exh. No.74 on perusal of the same. It

appears that defendant No.3, Yadavrao, due to illness has executed Power of Attorney in the

favour of his son.

15. The learned counsel of the Plaintiff submitted that defendant No.1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed

their common written statement. However, defendant No.3, Yadavrao, did not file any written

statement. The Power of Attorney was not given to DW. No.1, therefore, defendant No.3,

Yadavrao, did not file any written statement. It is deemed the he admitted the suit claim.

Therefore, the evidence given by DW. No.1, Anil can’t be read in the evidence. On perusal of

the record, it appears that defendant No.3, Yadavrao, has filed his separate written statement at

Exh. 30 and resisted the suit. Therefore, there is no subsistence in the submission of the learned

counsel that defendant No.3, Yadavrao has not filed written statement, it is deemed that he

admitted the suit claim and the evidence of DW. No.1 Anil cannot be read in the evidence.

16. DW. No.1, Anil has categorically stated in his evidence that, common ancestor of

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 4, was one Keshavrao. He was Revenue Village Police

( 7 )

Patil of Mahur for the period 1899-1909. He died in the year 1912. Keshavrao had three sons

namely Shrinivasrao, Khashaba and Madhav. Shrinivasrao was the elder son who became the

revenue police patil of their village in the year 1909 i.e during the lifetime of his father Keshavrao

and he was the police patil till 1929. Shrinivasrao had two sons Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao,

Bhaskarrao being the eldest. He became the Village police Patil in the year 1930 and he was

police patil till 1960. He further stated that in the year

1950 his son was appointed as Gumasta till 1960. In the year 1960 his Yadavrao i.e. Defendant

no.3.became the village police patil and looked after the said work till 1974. He further stated

that Bhaskarrao is no more. After the demise of Bhaskarrao his sons are not appointed as the

village police patil.

17. On the other hand P.W. no.1 Abasaheb has stated on oath at Exh.185 that their common

ancestor was keshavrao . His son Shrinivasrao became the village police patil. At that time

the suit properties were given to him. These lands were Vatan Properties appertaining to

the office of the village police patil. In the cross examination he has shown his ignorance

when Keshavrao became the village police patil. What was his tenure, when Shrinivasrao became

the Village police patil and till what period he was looking after the said work? However he has

admitted that when Bhaskarrao was village police patil his son Yadavrao was appointed as

Gumasta for the period of 1950-60. However he has not denied this specific period of the office

of village police patil given by the D.W.no 1. In his evidence. Therefore it has to be accepted

that the common ancestor of plaintiff and defendant was Keshavrao. He was village Police patil

for the period 1899-1909. From 1909-1929 Shrinivasrao became the village police patil and for

the period 1930-60 Bhaskarrao was the village police patil. From 1960-74 Yadavrao was the

village police patil. Defendants have placed on record the order passed by the collector

appointing their predecessor as Village Police patil. It is not disputed that the suit properties

were the Vatan properties appertaining to the office of village police patil. However D.W.no 1.

Anil has stated that Shrinivasrao during his lifetime partitioned the joint family property amongst

his two sons Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao on 6/7/1932 which includes Vatan properties. Late

Shrinivasrao had given the application to that effect to the revenue authority and recorded the

agricultural lands in the name of his sons Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao as per the partition. He

further stated that the said application also bears signature of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao. It

was in the handwriting of Sudhakarrao. However defendants have not placed on record either

copy of the said application or the application itself for the perusal of the court. Therefore there is

no cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove that the application given to the revenue

authority was in the handwriting of Sudhakarrao and also bears his signature and that of

Bhaskarrao. However he further stated that on the basis of the said application two mutation

entries have taken place m/l no773 and 774. As per the mutation entries 773 and

774. As per the mutation entry 773 the lands number 1/1A, 1/8A, 1/9A, 2/3A,2/5A, 2/8A,

2/11, 45/7( now converted into block number 492), survey number 64/1(now converted into block

no 491) were allotted to Bhaskarrao in partition dated 8/7/1932. He further

( 8 )

stated that, similarly land survey no 51/1, 51/5, 51/9, 52/1, 52/8, 52/11, 52/12, 52/13,

52/14, 52/15 and 45/6(now converted into block no 484 were allotted to Sudhakarrao and the land

survey no 31 was kept common.

18. Defendant in support of his evidence placed on record the certified copy of the mutation

entry no 773 and 774 and Exh no 93 and 102 on perusal of these mutation entries it clearly

appears that Shrinivas Keshavrao Jadhav had given the application dated 8/7/92 to the revenue

authority and requested to record the land mentioned the application in the name of Bhaskarrao

and Sudhakarrao. The said mutation entries were certified on

24/11/1932 with the approval of the Tahsildar and Sub-divisional Officer. The said mutation entry

also bears the signature of Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav. D.W. no 1

Anil has stated that late Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao started residing separately from the year

1924.Sudhakarrao was residing along with his family in an ancestral house whereas Bhaskarrao

along with his family started residing in a house which was purchased later on the year 1924.

Thus from the 1924 the residence of Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao was separate as per the partition

the lands which were allotted to them were recorded in their name and they started cultivating the

said mutation and partitioned during their lifetime. As per the partition the revenue khata of

Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao is separately maintained in the revenue record. Thus Bhaskarrao was

not concerned with any land which was allotted to Sudhakarraoand vice versa. As such they also

have no concern with the Vatan land which was allotted to Sudhakarrao in the partition bearing

block no 434. He has specifically denied that, after 1924 the vatan lands jointly cultivated by

their family till this date. If we go through the written notes or arguments filed by the learned

counsel of the plaintiff at exh. 188 wherein it is submitted that late Shrinivasrao wrongly

purchased the Vatan lands alongwith his other properties amongst his two sons in the year

1932. Neither Shrinivasrao , Bhaskarrao orSudhakarrao ever challenged this partition on the

ground that Shrinivasrao partitioned his properties as well as Vatan properties amongst his two

sons by metes and bounds and recorded these properties amongst his two sons vide mutation

entries no 773 and 774. It is pertinent to note that the said mutation entry is approved not only by

the tahsildar but also by the sub-divisional officer and further it bears the signature of

Sudhakarrao. The evidence of D.W.no1 Anil also reflects that from 1924 itself Bhaskarrao

andSudhakarrao started residing separately. Thus, from 1924 and onwards

BhaskarraoSudhakarrao along with their respective not only stated residing separately for food

and worship but also started cultivating the land properties separately. LateSudhakarrao never

challenged the partition effected by his father dt8/7/1932 on the ground that he had received less

acres than Bhaskarrao.

19. It is pertinent to note that, after the commencement of the Maharashtra Revenue Patil

Abolition Office Act1962, as per the order of the collector the Vatan properties under Gatt no

484, 491 and 492 resumed to the Government. D.W.No1 Anil has stated that Defendant no 3

Yadav made an application to re-grant land gatt no 491 and 492 being Vatandar.

SimilarlySudhakarrao had also made an application to re-grant land no 484 being Vatandar to the

revenue authority. He further stated that the authorities granted

( 9 )

them the properties. Accordingly land Gatt no 491 and 492 were recorded in the name of the

Defendant no 3 Yadavrao vide mutation entry 192. and land Gatt no 484 was recorded in

the name of Sudhakarrao vide mutation entry no 184. On perusal of the copy of mutation no 1780

filed at Exh, 194 it reveals that, as per the order of collector the Patil Vatan lands were recorded in

the name of the Government which included the suit properties. On perusal of the copy of the

mutation entry no 192 filed at Exh.96 it reveals that, in the year 1976 land gat no 491 and 492

regranted to the Defendant no 3 Yadavrao as per the order of the Tahsildar dt 5/7/76. On perusal

of the copy of mutation entry no

184 filed at exh.107 it appears that land gat no 484 is also Re-granted to Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao

Jadhav as per the order of Tahsildar dt 1/7/76. Since then, these properties are standing in the

name of Yadavrao as well as Sudhakarrao. Defendants have placed on record a number of

documents in order to show that after the demise of Bhaskarrao lands which were standing in the

name of Bhaskarrao are recorded in the name of his legal heirs i.e. Defendants. Similarly the

lands which were recorded in the name of Sudhakarrao after his demise were recorded in the

names of his legal heirs .i.e. the plaintiffs. This fact is admitted by P.W.no.1 Abasaheb so I don’t

find it necessary to discuss the documentary evidence placed on record in this regard. Furthermore

the defendants have also placed on record certain documents to show that the lands which were

allotted Bhaskarrao in partition of 1932. Later on his legal heirs have sold some of his properties

to the plaintiff’s son. P.W. No1 Abasaheb admitted this fact in his cross examination. Defendants

have also placed on record number of documents to show that after partition Bhaskarrao had

independently purchased some properties to whichSudhakarrao was the witness. Thus, on perusal

of evidence of D.W.No1 Anil it clearly appears that after partition in the year 1932 Bhaskarrao

and Sudhakarrao two brothers started cultivating the lands which were allotted to them including

the Vatan lands. Even after the recommendation of Maharashtra revenue Patil Abolition office Act

they were cultivating the land separately. Since Bhaskarrao died his son Yadavrao applied

for re-grant. Similarly Sudhakarrao also made an application for re-grant. The competent authority

even re-granted the land to Yadavrao andSudhakarrao and accordingly mutation entry no 184

and 192 came in to be recorded and certified. It also reveals from the evidence that after the

partition Bhaskarrao independently purchased some properties. It also reveals that in the year 1994

son of plaintiff no 1. Has purchased some properties from the defendants which were allotted to

them in partition of 1932.

20. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.No. 1. Abasaheb it clearly appears that he was in the

service of the police department in the state of Gujarat. He retired in the year 1994 and since then

has been residing in Pune. Similarly his brother Ramchandra has been residing in Mumbai since

the beginning and is still residing there. The Plaintiff no 3. Balkrishna is also in the police

department at Mumbai and after his retirement he started residing in Pune. Only Plaintiff no 4.

Hanumant is still residing at Village. Thus it clearly appears from the documentary as well as oral

evidence placed on record that neither plaintiff nor their predecessor in title ever challenged the

partition of 1932 mutation entry 773 and 774

( 10 )

the order of re-grant of the year 1976 and mutation entry no 184 and 192 till the date of filling the

suit on the ground that partition affected by Shrinivasrao was unequal. On the contrary the

recording in the name of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao on the basis of partition was within

the knowledge of Sudhakarrao. Sudhakarrao himself applied for the re-grant. It is not the case of

plaintiff what so ever entries taken place in the record of right was not within their knowledge

and thereon they could not challenge the said mutations prescribed time . On the contrary it

appears that Sudhakarrao was aware of the fact that his father partitioned all joint family property

including the Vatan lands amongst the two sons. Therefore at the time re-grant .... also he bnever

claimed share in the Vatan properties which were recorded in the name of Bhaskarrao and

subsequently recorded in the name of Defendant no 3 yadav

21. It is contended by the plaintiff that the suit property being Vatan lands attached to the

office of Village police patil were not partible. Therefore Shrinivasrao distributed the Vatan lands

between these two sons. The mutation taken place in the name of Bhaskarrao andSudhakarrao

vide mutation entries no 773 and 774 are abinitio void atleast to the extent of the Vatan lands.

Therefore the said mutation cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the present suit. By

operation of Sec 3 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patil Abolition Office act Vatans have been

abolished and all the incients attached to the vatandars came to an end. The said land on re-grant

became the joint family property of the hindu family and all the members of the family become

entitled to claim right to partition by survivor ship. In the instant case vatan lands are u8nequally

distributed amongst Bhaskarrao andSudhakarrao. In fact as per the provisions of the

lawSudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao are having ½ share each. Therefore the present suit is filed for ½

share ofSudhakarrao.

22. The learned counsel of the plaintiff vehemently submitted that the partition effected by

Shrinivasrao in respect of Vatan property is against the provisions of law. The said transaction is

ab initio void therefore mutation entry no773 and 774 cannot be taken into consideration as it does

not create or extinguish title and therefore it has to be held that it is a vatan property attached to

the office of Village police patil in re-grant both the brothers are entitled to get ½ share each in the

suit property. In support of his submission learned counsel of plaintiff relied upon the cases as

mentioned below;-

1. A.B Patil vs Balwan Patil 1996

2. Dhondi koli vs Mahadev Koli 1972

3. Kalgunda Patil vs Balgaunda Patil AIR 1989

I have gone through the above said rulings. In most of the cases the re-grant was made in the name

of the Vatandar and not in the name of other Family member. In the light of these aspects it is held

that once the Inam is abolished and properties are re-granted the property becomes Joint family

property and the family members become entitled to get share in the same. In the light of the

above said and settled principle of law one has to

( 11 )

hold that the suit property on re-grant becomes the joint family property of Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao. For a moment we ignore the provisions of the Maharashtra Revenue Patil Abolition

Office Act 1962, can it be said that the plaintiff has the cause of action to challenge the partition

of 1932? Had it been the fact that partition of 1932 was unequal then Sudhakarrao would have

challenged the said partition because the said partition was not in respect of the Vatan lands but

was also in respect of other joint family properties of late Shrinivasrao. It is not the case of

plaintiff that there was unequal partition of Joint family property amongst Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao. Late Shrinivasrao had also no reason to make unequal partition amongst his two

sons. It means that Late Shrinivasrao partitioned the property including the Vatan lands by metes

and bounds. But in view of the Inam lands and the Maharashtra Revenue Patil Abolition Office

Act 1962 plaintiffs are claiming ½ share in Vatan properties. It is contended that, it is admitted

fact that the suit properties are attached to the office of patil by rule of primogeniture become

impartible. The Maharashtra Revenue Patil Abolition Office Act came into force on

1/1/1963. The Vatan by operation of Sec 3 stood abolished. On Re-grant under Sec 5 of the said

Act it became the joint family property, as such late Sudhakarrao is having ½ shares undivided in

the suit properties. Therefore plaintiffs have the right to claim ½ shares in the suit property

being the legal heirs of Late Sudhakarrao. In this case though it is an admitted fact that the suit

properties are Vatan properties attached to the office of the Patil. However to prove that the suit

properties were not partible plaintiffs have not placed on record any original grant or Sanad

under which the land was granted. In absence of any such evidence it is very difficult to rely

upon the bear testimony of the plaintiff that the suit lands were impartible. Infact there was no

prohibition under the then exiting vatan land to alienate the Vatan properties. Under Sec2 (1)(b) of

the Maharashtra Revenue Patil Abolition office Act 1962 definition of ‘authorised holder’ is

given it means in whom the ownership of Vatan land, which has been validly alienated

permanently by the Vatandar, whether by sale or gift or otherwise under the existing vatan

law, vests. Resumption of vatan land is subject to the provision of section 6 of the act which

provides for grant of vatan land to authorised holder. Thus, as per the sec 6 if any vatan land held

by such authorised holder is resumed. Under sec 4 of the act it shall be re-granted to the holder at

the payment of occupancy price.

23. Whether any person is an authorised or unauthorised holder it is to be decided by the

collector under section 4 of the Act. The order passed by the collector under section 4(1) of the

said Act is finally subject to an Appeal. In the instant case the Vatan lands alongwith other joint

family property was equally divided in between two sons by the father in the year 1932. Had it

been the fact that such alienation of vatan property at the hands of Shrinivasrao was illegally and

contrary to the provision of existing vatan laws then certainly the said mutation entry would not

have been certified by the Sub-divisional officer. But here the division of partition made with the

permission of the sub-divisional officer and as such endorsement does find place in the last

column of the exh.91 and 102. It is also pertinent to note that the said mutation has taken place

in the year 1932 when

( 12 )

Bhaskarrao was appointed as the Village Police patil. Not only this, there appears signature of

Sudhakarrao in the original record of rights. If the partition of 1932 would have taken place

unequally then certainly Sudhakarrao would have challenged the same. Its absence indicates that

there was partition by metes and bounds in between two brothers. Therefore it was not

challenged by Sudhakarrao throughout his life. After commencements of Maharashtra Revenue

Patil Abolition office Act 1962 the suit land is resumed under section 4 of the said Act.

Therefore the defendant no 3 Yadavrao being the legal heirs and also the village police patil and

Vatandar approached the Revenue Authority and requested to re-grant the lands bearing Gat no

491 and 492 which were allotted to Bhaskarrao in the partition of 1932. Accordingly the revenue

authority re- granted the said lands to defendant no 3. Similarly Sudhakarrao had also requested

for re- grant of land Gat no 484 in his favour which was allotted to him in partition of 1932.

Accordingly revenue Authority re-granted the said land to him. It is admitted fact that Sudhakarrao

was never appointed as village police patil. He was a member of vatandar family. If Sudhakarrao

wasn’t the authorised holder within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the Act the Revenue

Authority wouldn’t have re-granted him land gat no.484. The said re-grant is also not

challenged by defendant during the lifetime and thereafter by his legal heirs till the date of filing

suit. All these facts itself have shown that the partition of the Vatan properties effected in the year

1932 is acted upon between two brothers and after their demise in between their legal heirs. The

said mutation is also approved by the sub-divisional officer who had power to appoint the village

police patil under the then existing laws. If now it is held that no re-grant suit property becomes

partible in between two brothers then the suit property will have to be divided equally amongst the

legal heirs of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao. If such method is adopted then, the partition which

was taken place by metes and bounds in the year 1932 will have to be re-opened because in that

partition Sudhakarrao had received equal share in entire joint family property including Vatan

lands but re-opening of partition of 1932 is not possible because the lands which were allotted

to the share of Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao are sold by their legal heirs. Even for the sake of

arguments if it is assumed that on re-grant the suit property becomes partible then partition of suit

property will have to be made by metes and bounds. Plaintiff would get on land gat no 484

because their predecessor in title already received some other properties. Therefore it appears to

me that partition of 1932 which took place with the approval of Sub-divisional approval cannot be

said to be illegal and the present suit is not maintainable.

24. It is also admitted fact that late Bhaskarrao became the Village police patil in 1930. It is

proved by the defendant that since 1924 the joint family of Bhaskarrao andSudhakarrao came to

an end. They were not only residing separately but they were also cultivating their lands

separately including the Vatan lands. When the suit property was re-granted the Plaintiff’s

father Sudhakarrao was not the member of family of Bhaskarrao or his legal heirs and

therefore on this ground also he can’t claim share in the property which is re-granted to the

defendant no 3. Yadavrao.

( 13 )

25. In case of Balwant Baburao Pharande and others vs Krishna Sakharam Pharande and

others reported in 1990 tenancy and land decisions of Maharashtra 364. The inam land was

permanently leased out in favour of the purchasers of the respondents. When the vatan land

is resumed by the state Government at that time land was held by an authorised holder and

therefore it is held that the said vatan land shall be granted to such authorised holder on payment

of occupancy price to the state Government. Such authorised holder has preferential right over all

the vatandars for re-grant. In the instant case also late Shrinivasrao permanently alienated the

vatan land in between his two somns alongwith other properties, by way of partition. The

said approved by the then sub-divisional officer. On the resumption of vatan land to the

government as per the division of vatan land it was re-granted toSudhakarrao and to Defendant no.

3 Yadavrao being son of Late Bhaskarrao. Since the partition of Vatan land has already taken

place by metes and bounds the present suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed. Plaintiffs are trying to take undue advantage of the provisions of the Maharashtra

Revenue Patil Abolition Office 1962. The ratio laid down in the ruling cited by the learned

counsel of the plaintiff is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case.

Therefore I come to the conclusion that defendants have proved antecedents partition of 1932 and

therefore they are the sole owner of the land gatt no 491 and 492 as such issue no 1A and 1B

answered in negative. In the light of these findings issue no 3 does not survive and plaintiffs are

not entitled for the relief sought. Hence issue no 3 and 4 answered in the negative.

Consequently suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Here I pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Suit stands dismissed.

2. In the peculiar circumstances no order as to costs.

Pune sd/xx

Dt 7/1/2006

2nd

Jt C.J.S.D. PUNE

( 14 )

Affidavit

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION PUNE, AT PUNE

CIVIL SUIT NO: 417/04

Shri. Shrinivasrao Sudhakarrao Jadhav and others ……………………………..Plaintiff

v/s

Shri. Keshavrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav and others …………………………………Defendant

Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief

I, Shri. Shrinivasrao Sudhakarrao Jadhav, Age: 70; Occupation: Farmer; at: Mahur, state on

solemn affirmation as under.

That, I am plaintiff no. 1 in the said suit. Except plaintiff no. 8 all the plaintiff are my brother’s

sisters and mother. We had filed this suit for partition and for separate possession. Description of

the land mentioned in plaint no.1 A is true and correct. As per the Bombay Consolidation and

Fragmentation Act Gat no. is given for the same. The suit property has Gat no 491, 492 and 484.

Amongst the suit land 22 acres is perennial land and uncultivable land is approximately 52

gunthas. Out of the total area of land 62 guntas are in possession of plaintiff and remaining is in

possession of defendant no. 3.

Mr. Buvasaheb is the Ancestor of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Government had allotted the above

said land to his son Shrinivasrao on grant. The income of the said property was to be received by

Shrinivasrao. Abasaheb was appointed as “police patil” and “mulki patil” for the village Mahur,

Tal. Purandar. Abovesaid land was given to him as “Inam” for his service in the government

which was allotted under the following conditions:

1) The Inam land will not be subjected to partition .

2) The eldest son of the Jadhav family ought to become the “Patil”

Shrinivasrao occupied the land and earned income out of it based on the above conditions.

After the death of Shrinivasrao his eldest son Bhaskarrao became mulki patil and also occupied

the land. Bhaskarrao and his younger brother Sudhakarrao were a joint family and because of

this reason both Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao occupied the land jointly.

The joint family property which was the Inam alias Vatan land was not partitioned till 1962.

Bombay Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act ,1962 came into existence. At that time the family

of Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao were the members of Joint family under this Act. Inam land was

not partitioned. Bhaskarrao being in Police and also Mulki Patil of village taking advantage of

his position changed the records and made entries in his favour and didn’t record Sudhakarrao’s

name as as a holder . Sudhakarrao had no knowledge about the same. Abovesaid entrie cannot

( 15 )

become the proof of partition. From the said entries no right of partition can be created on the

Inam land. There is no written document regarding partition of joint family till today, at the same

time it is not possible as well due to the right of government over it. Shrinivasrao had no right to

partition and neither had he partitioned it orally. Sudhakarrao was into farming and labour. He was

illiterate and innocent. He had faith on his brother Saka Appa. Due to this reason

Sudhakarrao never made enquiries about the entries in the land record. The entries in the land

record are wrong and are not binding on Sudhakarrao and his sons who are the plaintiff.

As per the Act of 1962 those who are the members of the joint family have to pay Najarana to

the Government. Bhaskarrao had already paid the said tax without Sudhakarrao’s knowledge.

The land of Sudhakarrao bearing Gut no. 484 was mode on Bhaskarrao’s name and only 64

guntas of land was recorded in the name of Sudhakarrao.

In the year 1962 Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao were both members of the joint family. Because of

this reason Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao both had ½ share in the Inam land. This suit is thus filed

for the partition of the Inam Land. Sudhakarrao being the owner of ½ the share in Inam land,the

plaintiff owns half the share in Sudhakarrao’s property .

Hence the court may pass an order of partition grating possession of half share in each of the 3

suit properties mentioned in the plaint.

Pune:

Date:

Sign:

Plaintiff No. 1

( 16 )

Verification

I, Shri. Shrinivasrao Jadhav, Age: 70 years; Occupation: Farmer; Retired from police:

R\at :Mahur , Tal. Purandar state on an oath that the abovementioned majkur in Para 1 to 8 are

true according to my knowledge and understanding. For that purpose it has been signed by me on

this day in Pune.

PUNE:

DATE:

SIGNATURE

( 17 )

Cross-Examination of Witness

I was working in the police department in state of Gujarat. I retired in the year 1994. My entire

service was in Gujarat only. My ration card name is registered on the electoral roll of Pune.

Witness volunteers that I also have ration card and voters ID registered at my native place. It is

not true that my statement regarding the ration card and voters ID is false.

Plaintiff no 2 Rajaram since the beginning was working in Mumbai for a private company and

retired working from the same. After his retirement he is residing at Kalyan, Mumbai. Plaintiff

No3 Gopal since the beginning of his service was in the Police Department of Mumbai. After his

retirement he is currently residing in Pune. Plaintiff No 4 Bhimsen has from the very beginning

been residing along with his family members at Mahur Village. Bhimsen looked after the

property that is inherited from my father from the very beginning. It’s not true that he derives all

the income from the ancestral property of our father.

Keshavrao is the common ancestor of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. Keshavrao had

three sons namely Shrinivasrao, Ganesh and Raghav. Shrinivasrao was the mulki patil of Mahur

village. I am not sure about the duration of his office as Patil. As far as my knowledge is

concerned it was from year 1909-1928. I cannot say that he expired in the year 1934.

Shrinivasrao had two sons Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao respectively. Bhaskarrao was the eldest.

Bhaskarrao was the Mulki Patil , I cannot assert that he worked as mulki patil for the period

1930-1960.

Defendant no 1 and Defendant no 3 Madhavrao are Bhaskarrao’s sons. Defendant No 1

Keshavrao worked as a primary teacher. I have heard that Defendant no 3 Madhavrao during the

period from 1950-60 worked as a Police Patil’s assistant. I have no idea that Madhavrao was the

mulki Patil from the year 1960-74.

I have heard that Keshavrao’s son Madhav had a son named Ganapati. I however have no

knowledge about the fact that Ganapati has two sons and two daughters. As far as I know

Ganpati has a daughter named Suman who resides at Neera, taluka Purandar, district Pune.

I have heard that Keshavrao’s second son Ganesh has 3 children is known to me and that they are

no longer alive. Amongst these children Babasaheb has a daughter named Neelutai. Naiksaheb

has a son named Veer. I do not know anything about his other heirs. I have heard that Naiksaheb

has two daughters named Lata and Malan. Dajisaheb has 4 sons and a daughter named

Swarnalata. I have no clue that prior to Dajisaheb, Keshavrao’s daughter was the police patil. I

also do not know that Keshavrao Jadhav died in the year 1912. I do not know whether he income

out of the property claimed; belonged to the Jadhav family from the time of Keshavrao Jadhav

.Apart from the suit land other lands of Jadhav family were included in mutation number 773 &

774 . I do not know whether Gat No 7, 13 21, 24 are mutated in the name of Bhaskarrao Jadhav .

In the year 1994 these land were purchased in the name of my son Ruturaj, I do not remember

the exact amount for which it was purchased. Before buying this land I did not inquire about the

title. I paid the amount for the sale deed.

( 18 )

It is not true that this property is Madhavrao s ancestral property witnesses volunteers. I do not

know whether ancestral property mutated in the name of Sudhakarrao

From the year 1932 some of the ancestral property was recorded in the name of my father

Sudhakarrao. My father expired on 25/2/1987. After his death the name of my father over the

land was replaced by inserting our names. Some of the ancestral land was also recorded in the

name of my uncle Bhaskarrao in the year 1932. Bhaskarrao died on 9/11/1973. After his death

his heirs i.e defendants 1-3 recorded their own names on the land owned by Bhaskarrao.

Suit land bearing earlier Survey No 64/1 is now Gat no 491 and survey no 45/7 is now Gat no

492 and of Gat no 484 may be survey no 45/6.

Gat no 484 old survey no 45/6 was in the name of my father Sudhakarrao since 1932. I have no

knowledge of Gat no 491 old survey no 64/1 and Gat no 492 old survey no 45/7 was recorded in

the name of Bhaskarrao .

Since 1932 my father’s name was not recorded on Gat no 491 and no 492 and then our name was

not recorded in the 7/12 extract. Bhaskarrao got the Gat no 491 and 492 in his name according to

mutation no. 773 is not known to me.

In the year 1974 def no 3 Madhavrao got his name recorded in Gat No 491 & 492 by paying

Najarana fees on the old condition it is not true to state that My father paid the fees and got his

name recorded on Gat No 494 . I also have no knowledge whether Plaintiff no 4 Bhimsen Jadhav

purchased the land under Gat no 1054 from the Def no 3 Madhavrao.

In the year 1945 Bhaskarrao purchased land owned by Peshwas (Phadake Mala) Bhaskarrao also

purchased Rajaram Sonar’s house and the land adjoining the house in the year 1947. Apart from

that he also bought Salunke Barber’s house and land adjoining the house. In 1953 he purchased

Navekar’s house and my father’s signature as a witness on all these sale deed is not known by

me. It is not true to state that on 8/7/1932 Shrinivasrao distributed the joint family property

between his 2 sons. Thus it is also not true that land under Gat no 773 came to the share of

Bhaskarrao. The fact that all the land property came to my father is also not true. I do not know

whether my father complained about these mutation entries or not. Me and the other plaintiffs have

also not complained to any Revenue officer about the mutations entries on Gat No 773 &

774.

The land under Gat no 784 is exclusively held by us from my father’s time. At the time of filing

the suit the information of the Inam land was not given to the advocate before. It is not true to

state that the Inam lands were not given on conditions.

My date of birth is 12/1/1936. Right from the time of my childhood my father and Bhaskarrao

were living and leading their lives separately. It is not true that from 1924 my father and

Bhaskarrao had separate business also. It is also not true that the suit property bearing Gat No

491 and 492 is in separate ownership and possession of the defendant no 3.

( 19 )

It is not true that Defendant no 3 had no right to dispose off the said property. It is also not true

that we have no right over the said property. It is not true to say that we have filed this suit to

harass the defendant and to incur costs upon them.

( 20 )

Deposition of Defendant no 1

Exh. 73/1

Reg Suit No: 42/96

I state on affirmation –

My name is Anil Madhavrao Jadhav; age -30 years; occupation –cultivation/farming ; Residence

–Mahur ; Taluka –Purandhar; District Pune

Examination in chief -

Defendant No 3 is my father. My father has executed the power of attorney in my name to

depose in his behalf in this suit. I have already submitted the power of Attorney which is shown

to me now. The signature of the person giving the power of attorney is of my father and he has

signed it in my presence. Similarly I have signed as the person receiving the power of Attorney

holder. The facts stated herein are true and correct. The same is admitted at Exhibit 74. I am

deposing on behalf of my father. I know the plaintiff, defendant and the suit property. On request

of the advocate the examination-in –chief was adjourned.

9/3/2001

Examination on oath commences dt 4/7/2001

I am deposing on behalf of defendant No 1 to 3. The description of the suit property is wrong;

Keshavrao was the common ancestor of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. He died in the year

1912. Plaintiff was the mulki patil of the village from 1899-1909. However at the time of his

death he was not the mulki patil. Shrinivasrao became the patil 3 yrs prior to Keshavraos death.

Shrinivasrao died in the year 1934. He was the patil from 1909-1929. Shrinivasrao after his

father’s death became the mulki Patil independently Shrinivasrao had two sons Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao; Bhaskarrao being the elder was the village mulki patil from the year 1930-60.

After 1950 Bhaskarrao defendant no 3 was transferred to the office as Gumaste/Assistant. He

worked as the assistant during 1950-1960. In the year 1960 def no 3 was the appointed as the

independent mulki patil. He then worked as the Mulki Patil from 1960-74.

Bhaskarrao being dead his eldest son is Keshavrao. He however was not appointed as the mulki

patil . Madhav Keshavrao Jadhav is dead and he had sole heir named Ganapati who is also dead.

Ganapati has 4 heirs’ Suresh, Mohan, Suman and Ratna respectively. Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao

Jadhav is also dead and he is the father of all the plaintiffs and the defendant no 4.are his legal

heirs. Ganesh Keshavrao Jadhav is also dead and he has 3 sons namely Dadasaheb, Naiksaheb

and Dajisaheb all of them are dead. Babasaheb died in the year 1956. He had only 1 daughter i.e

Neelutai. Naiksaheb has Veer, Pravin, Tilak, Prabhakar, Ratnakant, Lata and Malan as his heirs.

Dajisaheb has four sons Prakash, Vijay Nandu, Santosh and one daughter named Swarnalata.

Suit property bearing Gat No 491 and 492 is in the use, ownership and possession of the defendant

no 3. The defendant has been cultivating crops on the said land. The plaintiff and

( 21 )

defendant No -4 is not concerned with the ownership of land bearing Gat No 491 & 492. We are

not in a way associated with the land bearing Gat no 484. Gat no 491 was earlier recorded as

Survey No 64/1 and Gat no 492 Survey no 45/7. Plaintiff’s father’s full name is Sudhakarrao

Shrinivasrao Jadhav. Defendant no 3’s father is Bhaskarrao Jadhav. The property is divided by

metes and bounds amongst Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao. The said partition took place on

8/7/1932. The property was divided by Shrinivasrao father of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao .

An application for the same was filed to the circle officer. Shrinivasrao himself filed for it..

Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao signed the same said application which was in the hand-writing of

Father of the plaintiff, Mutation entries no 773 and 774 were done in accordance with the

application. The same was recorded in the 7/12. The mutation entries were recorded on 8/7/1932.

The mutations were certified by Tahsildar and Collector. The plaintiff and his father have not

complained against these mutation entries till date. According to this Partition Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao had separate land and the income was also separately gained.

Land under Gatt no 491 and 492 were given to Defendant No 3’s father Bhaskarrao in the

partition. The same was recorded in 7/12 extract. Since 1924 Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao were

living separately. Sudhakarrao was residing in the ancestral house whereas Bhaskarrao was

living in the house which he bought in the year 1927. Their business was also different. I have

requested a copy of the same which was signed by Tahsildar and collector in the year 1932. But I

haven’t received the same. Gat no. 774 land was allotted to Sudhakarrao.

12/7/2001

( 22 )

Exh. 73

Cross – examination on oath

Advocate on behalf of plaintiff

My father Yadavrao Bhaskarrao has blood pressure and he is not well . It is true that I have not

produced any Medical certificate about his illness. I know about ‘Patilki’ of ‘Mahur’ since my

father became Mulki Patil . In 1950 my father was appointed as’ Gumasta ‘. It is true that the

said appointment was for 10 years. It is true that his appointment as Gumasta lapsed in 1960. In

1960 Maharashtra Government again appointed him as ‘Patil’ of Mahur till 1974. I don’t have

any Documentary evidence proving my fathers appointment as Patil in 1960. it is true that I do

not have any documentary evidence proving my fathers tenure of patilki from 1960 to 1974 .i

cannot state whether after 1960 Raghunath Ramrao was ‘patil’ of Mahur . I don’t know whether

after Raghunath’s demise Mr Maruti became that Patil .I am stating the fact of Partition Dt

8/7/1932 based on the information I got from my cousin and grandmother Babubai , and also the

Documents . Babusaheb Bhaskarrao is Alive however Babubai is dead .

Bhaskarrao was my Grandfather and Sudhakarrao was his brother, both of them were educated

but I don’t know their qualification . Father of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao i.e. Abaji was also

educated but I don’t know his qualification . It is not true that I never had any occasion to see the

handwriting of Sudhakarrao and abaji , Sandeep before appearing before Court . I don’t

remember the year when I saw Dinkars Handwriting .I am ready to produce the Sudhakarrao’s

handwritten Document in the Court .The true copy of Application for Partition dt 8/7/1932 has

been presented in court by me . it is true that I have not seen the original Application . I have

state about Sudhakarraos handwriting on the Application by perusing Documents . It is not true

that Application for Partition was not in the handwriting of Sudhakarrao .

Till 1924 transactions of Dinkarao and Bhaskarrao were all in common . from 1924 – 1925

Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao had a transactions of land sale and Purchase separately . they had

such 5-6 transaction .I know sale transactions of Bhaskarrao However I don’t know the transaction

of Sudhakarrao .

23/11/2001

Cross –Examination Continued 13/09/2005

In this suit no other witness will be examined on behalf of Defendant .

The Family –Tree submitted by the Plaintiff is correct but it is incomplete . It is not true that Gat

No 484 is also in Issue in the present Suit. Gat No 484 is in plaintiff’s Possession . I can’t state

the total area of Gat No 491 , 492 and 484 together .Gat No 484 is of 64 Gunttha . ‘Patil Watan’

belons to Jadhav Family and Bhaskarrao was my grandfather . Defendant No 3 Yadavrao is my

father and Son of Bhaskarrao Jadhav . Sudhakarrao is a real brother of Bhaskarrao and is

younger to Bhaskarrao . Sudhakarrao was Plaintiffs father I cannot state the age difference

between Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao . Bhaskarrao was village Mulki Patil from 1930 to 1960 .

( 23 )

It is not true that Sudhakarrao and Bhaskarrao had a Joint Family in 1930 . in 1932 partitioned

had already taken place. The Registered Partition Deed is not available. Abaji, father of

Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao had made the partition by filling an Application to the Mamledar.

The copy of the Application has been produced on record. Till 1932 lands were held jointly.

Witness voluntarily states that from 1924 Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao were living separately.

Apart from Vatan land Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao had other land also.

It is not true that according to law the Vatan land can’t be subjected to Partition. It is true that

Patilki /Vatan go to the eldest Son of the Family. Vatan land was allotted for imparting service to

the Government. Patil-Vatan was abolished in 1973. Due to Introduction of Vatan law Vatan

land were taken by the concerned Family.

It is not true that when the law was introduced Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao had a Joint Family . in

the Partition some portion of the vatan land bearing Gat No 484 has been given to Sudhakarraos

share .it is not true that being a Mulki Patil Bhaskarrao made the mutation entries in his favour .

it is not true that Sudhakarrao was innocent and in partition Bhaskarrao got greater share . I cannot

state whether area of Bhaskarrao share is 22Acre 4x56 Guntha – 64 Guntha. The Vatan land

belongs to us since Keshavrao time i.e Abajis father . Before 1932 Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao

were holding the jointly. It is not true to say that due to Vatan Abolition Law the Land were

Jointly held by Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao . It is not true that on the date of filling of suit the

Vatan land was a Joint Family Property of Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao . It is not true that the

partition between Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao is illegal and invalid.

No Re-examination.

13/9/2005

( 24 )

Amended Plaint

In the Court of Hon’ble Civil Judge Junior Division, Saswad

R.C.S.No. 42/1996

1) Shri. Shrinivasrao Jadhav

Age: 81, Occ: Farming

2) Shri. Rajaram Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age: 58, Occ: Service and Farming Res:

Mahur, Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune

3) Shri. Gopal Sudhakarrao Jadhav Age:

54, Occ: Service and Farming Res: Mahur,

Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune

4) Shri. Bhimsen Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age: 51, Occ: Farming

5) Sau. Sonal Naik

Age: 47, Occ: Household and Farming

Res: Nimbore, Tal. Phaltan, Dis. Satara.

6) Sau. Monal Khade

Age: 44, Occ: Household and Farming

Res: Veer, Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune

7) Sau. Vidya Londhe

Age: 29, Occ: Household and Farming

Res: Dombivili, Mohanbhaiyaji Chowl, Mumbai-64

8) Smt Uma Sudhakarrao Jadhav

Age. 81, Occ: --------

Res: Mahur, Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune…………………………………… Plaintiff

V/s

1) Shri Ganpatrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav [Dead]

Heir on behalf:-

( 25 )

1A) Smt. Seemabai Babusaheb Jadhav

Age: 70, Occ: Nothing

Res: Mahur, Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune

1B) Shri. Vikas Tukaram Londe

Age: 32, Occ: Nothing

Res: Randan Tal. Man, Dis. Satara

1D) Sau. Isha Pramod Londe

Age: 27, Occ: Nothing

Res: Shrinath App. Room No.20

Bhaindar, Mumbai.

1C) Sau. Suman Suryakant Londe

Age: 21 Occ: Nothing

Res: Humgaon Tal. Jawali, Dis: Satara

2) Sau. Ulkabai Aka Sulochana Sampatrao Londe

Age: 68 Occ: Household and Farming

Res: Humgaon, Tal. Javali, Dis: Satara

3) Yadav Bhaskarrao Jadhav

Age: 65, Occ: Farming

Res: Mahur Tal. Purandar, Dis: Pune

Manager of his own and brother’s Joint Hindu Family

4) Sau. Sitabai Vinayakrao Londe

Age: 63 Occ. Farming and Household

5) Shri. Rajesh Suryakant Patil

Age: 30, Occ: Farming

Res: Saswad Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune…………………………………………

Defendant

( 26 )

Suit- Court Fee Stamp Rs. 436/- For Jurisdiction Rs. 3036/-

---------------------------------------- The above mentioned Plaintiffs humbly states before

this Hon’ble court as under:-

1A] Description of property-Unit Pune, Sub-Unit Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune, is in the

jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Sub-registrar and “Patil Inam” Class 6, Agricultural Land of

Village (Mauje) Mahur Tal Purandar, Dis. Pune.

Land bearing Sr.No hissa No Assessed

Rs. Paise

45/7

7=01

4.3.0

0=14

---------------

6.10.0

7=15

64/1 12=21

2=16

----------------------

13 = 37

45/6 1=23

0=01

---------------------- 2.87

( 27 )

1B] Due to the consolidation Scheme in the Village (mauje) Mahur, Taluka . Purandar, Dis.

Pune, the above mentioned land of “Patil Inam” Class 6 has been given Group Number. According

to the record the description is as under:-

Land bearing Gatt No hissa No Assessed

492 2. 84b 4.19

Potkharab 0.14

491 5.7 6.62

Potkharab o.57

-----------------------

5.64

484 0.64 2.87

According to this the Jirayat land, Trees, vegetation, including all material and easement and

vehicle road rights on the said property are the subject matter of dispute in the said suit.

2) Shrinivasrao Keshavrao Jadhav was head of the family of Plaintiff and Defendant. He

was “Patil” of the Mahur village. He was working as a “Patil” till he died and the said land

was given to him by the Government as routine to get the remuneration from it. Said land was

given to him as “Inam” by the Government and he had two sons at the time of his death.

Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav was the Elder son and he was working as “Patil” of Mahur

village. He died in year 1973 and respondent no 1 to 3 are his legal heirs.

Sudhakarrao was the second son of Shrinivasrao Keshavrao Jadhav who died on

25.2.1987 in Mahur Tal. Purandar Dis. Pune and all the Plaintiffs in the suit are his legal heirs and

Plaintiffs and Defendant belong to the family of “Vatandar Patil”. The genealogy has been

given with suit for the purpose of Plaintiff and Defendant and it is treated as a part of the suit.

3) Shrinivasrao Keshavrao Jadhav was not the owner of the suit land and the said land in

suit was given to him by Government being the Government servant .The government was the

owner of the land and therefore, Shrinivasrao Jadhav has no right and power to partition the

property amongst his sons Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao which he has received in “Patil Inam Class

6”. Therefore, the mutation entries no. 773 and 774 which are in the Revenue Records of Mahur

Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune are void ab initio and was made by the revenue officer carelessly and the

said Mutation entries no.773 and 774 are not and will never be binding upon the plaintiff. The

said mutation entries no 773 and

774 are null and void in the eyes of law therefore the question of limitation does not arise

( 28 )

and due to the nullity of entries, it does not and will not create any ownership rights for

Defendant no. 3 against the plaintiff.

4) The Agricultural Land of defendant No 3 at Mahur bearing No. 491 and 492 became

government owned lands after Patil Inam Vatan Abolition Act, 1962 came into force. To get the

said land re-grant on the old terms Defendant No. 3 paid some amount and after that the

Tahasildar of Purandar made mutation entry no. 192 to said Gat no 491 and 492 in the name of

Defendant no. 3 and put his name on Record as an owner. Therefore the Defendant no. 3 is not the

sole owner of the said land and according to the law the respondent no.3 was never and is not the

owner of the sole owner of the property. The said property was and is the Joint Family property

between Plaintiff and Defendant. In a similar identical situation Bombay High Court has given a

decision on Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act and the decision is cited in 75 Bombay Law

Reporter, Page no. 296 has applied the same principle in “Patil Vatan Inam”. According to The

Supreme court in Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Vatan Abolition Act, 1950 in AIR 1982 SC 887,

Nagesh Desai V/s Khondu tirmal the re-grant order is for the Joint Hindu family and has right to

claim partition.

And according to Pargana and Kulkarni Vatan Abolition Act. The property which is given on

old terms to Vatandar. The Joint Hindu Family gets benefited. Hon’ble court was pleased to

observe in AIR 1989 SC 1042 in Kal gonda Baap Gonda Patil v/s Bavgonda Kalgonda Patil and

Ajnayak and Appa Santu Jadhav v/s Jotiba Bapu Jadhav, and In Bombay Inferior Village Vatan

Abolition Act AIR 1982 SC 887 and AIR 1977

Bom. 350. Thus the Hon’ble court may take into consideration that the old term re- granted

land is beneficial to Hindu Joint Family.

Defendant No. 3 got Gat no. 491 and 492 on old term re-grant in Mahur and its Mutation Entry

No. 192 is certified in 26 / 09/ 1997.Plaintiff’s Father is to pay to the Government at 26 times

cess w.r.t Gat No 484 .

5) As the suit is for partition and separate possession the suit valuation is calculated 20

times of one year’s agricultural tax which equals to 13.68 paise which comes to 273.68 paise. In

this property plaintiff has half of the share thus the valuation 273.60/2 equal to

137( round figure) For the purpose of court fee stamp as well as process fee and

advocates fee has been considered and thus the suit valuation calculates to 2736.

6) In addition to this valuation plaintiff also prays for injunction against Defendant no. 3

restraining him from dealing with land bearing Gat. No. 491 and 492 in any way

including sale, mortgage, gift or creating any charge or encumbrance of any Bank, till the final

decision of the Hon’ble court, and that is valued at Rs. 300 . and court fees stamp has been paid

on that .

7) The said property is situated in Mahur, Tal. Purandar, Dis. Pune. Which is in the

Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court? The cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

court. Thus this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter.

( 29 )

8) The addresses of Plaintiffs and the Defendants are according to the title. In the Suit

9) Thus the Plaintiff humbly prays:-

A] That the suit property should be partitioned by metes and bounds and plaintiff

should be put in possession of ½ share in the suit property.

B] That Defendant No. 3 should be restrained from sale, Mortgage, creating any

kind of liability on the suit Property i.e. Gat no 491 and 492 in the suit.

C] The Plaintiff may be granted the Mesne Profit from the defendant from filing of

the Suit till the Plaintiff gets actual possession of the suit property.

D] It may also be declared that Sale-deed which was executed between Defendant

No. 3 and Defendant no. 5 is not binding on the undivided share of the plaintiffs.

E] The plaintiff craves to his Hon’ble court to add, amend, modify any of the above

contains in this suit with the leave of the court.

F] The court may pass any other order in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good

Conscience.

Hence the present suit.

Place: Saswad

Date: 28.02.2003 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Sign/- Sign/-

Advocate Plaintiff

\\Annexure – Family Tree //

( 30 )

( 31 )

IN THE SASWAD COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION

R.C. S. No 42/96

Shri. Shrinivasrao aka Sudhakarrao Jadhav & Ors …………… Plaintiffs

Shri. Keshavrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav & Ors …………... Defendants

Herein is the written statement of Defendant number 1 & 2 submitted as under :

1. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not true and correct, and thus not acceptable by the

Defendants.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff can’t be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.

3. The Boundaries of the suit property given by the plaintiff’s in Para No 1 of the plaint are

not correct and till they are rectified the suit can’t be entertained.

4. Plaintiffs Suit is barred by Limitation Act and not within limitation period thus on this

ground also the suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the alternative the Defendant also pleads that, the Plaintiffs have not included all the

properties of the so called Joint Family of both Plaintiffs and Defendants; thus the suit is not

tenable .

6. The Defendants clearly states that the plaintiff has wrongly stated the suit value to bring

the suit within the jurisdiction of the court; however the Hon’ble court doesn’t have a jurisdiction.

7. All the Necessary parties are not included in the suit, Unless and until the necessary

parties are included as parties to the suit, the present suit can’t be entertained.

8. In para 2 whatever is said by the Plaintiffs is mostly true. But the Plaintiffs have not

given the complete family tree. As regards to para 3 all the statements made by the Plaintiffs being

false and fraudulent, are not at all accepted by the Defendants. The averments of clause 4 of the

complaint stating that, in the said suit property, Shrinivasrao Jadhav was not the owner of the

property, and hence he does not have any right to make any partition in the said suit property and

also the entry no. 773 and 774 being illegal, and the Plaintiffs not being liable for the same, is

totally false and fraudulent, and hence not at all accepted by the Defendants. Similarly in the said

suit property, gat no. 491 and 492 the name of Defendant number (3) is being recorded as the

owner, due to this Defendant no. 3 is not the only owner and legally he has not become an owner,

and the said property was joint family property. the property was regranted on the old tenure in

favor of the

( 32 )

joint family and thus the Plaintiff has a legal right to claim partition and his share in the said

property etc was being made when the Plaintiffs and the Defendants were one family and also the

regrant order was being made upon an old condition which was for the entire one family, so the

Plaintiff has the right to claim for partition etc is false and fraudulent and hence not at all

acceptable to the Defendants. Also the pleadings in paras 6 and 7 regarding the re-grant order in

sole name of defendant after which he started dealing with it against which a notice was issued

by plaintiff on 25/11/95 etc is all false and dishonestly made and not at all acceptable to the

defendants .

9. On the contrary the true and correct position is pleaded herewith-

In 1932 Keshavrao partitioned the ancestral property between his sons Sudhakarrao (plaintiff’s

Father) and Bhaskarrao (Defendant’s Father). Accordingly the mutation entries 773 and 774

were recorded after Proper Application was made to the revenue Authority dt.8/7/1932 .Since then

each one of them had separate account, right and possession of the property of their share and till

today their legal heirs are enjoying it . In the Partition Gat No 491 and 492 were given to

Bhaskarrao (Defendant’s Father) . Accordingly Mutation entries were also recorded . Thus from

that period, both of them enjoyed their share of the partitioned property,and also their heirs

i.e. the present Plaintiffs and Defendants are enjoying the said property. Mutation entry number

773 and

774 registered on date 8/7/1932, is being accepted by both the Tahsildar and the Collector.

As per the provision of the law, the Commissioner declared that the Collector and Tahsildar,

respectively on the dates 20/11/1932 and 24/11/1932 have accepted the mutation.

No appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs or their father till today in the appropriate court. In the

present suit also the said partition and the mutation entries along with both the mutation entries are

not being challenged.

In 1932 the partition and accordingly mutation entries were made, each one had his separate

share of the property. In the year 1932 itself the division was being made by the father of

Bhaskarrao and Sudhakarrao. Both the mutation entries i.e. mutation no. 773 and 774 were

being signed in the register by Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav and Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao

Jadhav in the year 1932. In the said suit property Shrinivasrao Jadhav gave gat no. 491 and 492,

to the Defendants father, and made the entry in the

7/12 extract record. The earlier survey number of gat no. 491 was 64/1 and the survey number of

gat no. 492 was 45/7 both these survey numbers were given to Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav

in the mutation entry no. 773. Thus after the partition which took place in the year 1932, the

Plaintiff’s father, or the Plaintiffs heirs , or their brother, have no relation in respect of any right,

ownership, or disposal of the said property as of today. As per mutation entry number 774, the

land being given to Sudhakarrao, with survey number, 51/1, 51/5, 51/7, 51/9, 52/1, 52/8, 52/11,

52/12, 52/13, 52/14, 52/15 and as per group number 6 of 45/6, the following entry was being made

in the 7/12 extract, and also after his death, the names of his heirs i.e. all the Plaintiff’s are

mentioned in the records,

( 33 )

and thus the Partition of the property has been established clearly and is complete . As per

the mutation entry number 773, the land was being given to Bhaskarrao, with survey number

1/1A, 1/8A, 2/3 A, 2/5A, 2/8A, 2/11, and as per group of survey number 31was reserved as

common. Similarly the Inam land survey number 45/7, and present Gat No

492 with survey number 64/1, and present Gat No 491, of which Partition was being

made in the year 1932, and are given to Bhaskarrao and after the death of Bhaskarrao, the

names of his legal heirs i.e. all the Defendants were recorded ,. The Partition which took place

in the year 1932, the Plaintiffs father i.e. Sudhakarrao was allotted the land with Gat No

13,7,21 and 24, the same agricultural land, had been Purchased by Plaintiff no. 1 in the name

of his son Ruturaj by way of a registered sale deed on 22/9/1994 from Defendant no. 3 i.e.

Madhavrao . In the same manner Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav, bought a land with survey

number 84/8 and present Gat No1054, from Nanadhupkar and Rukhmani on the date 3/9/1927,

and the same land was purchased by Plaintiff number 4 i.e. Bhimsen Sudhakarrao Jadhav in

the year 1978 from Bhaskarrao. The mutation entry number is 272. Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao

Jadhav bought a land from Raghunath Darekar by making a registered sale deed, on the date

16/3/1953 in the village premises for amount of 32 rupees and 8 paise, and for the said sale

deed the Plaintiff’s father i.e. Sudhakarrao signed as a witness. In the year 1945, the

agricultural lands with survey number 9, and present Gat No 1480, was bought by Bhaskarrao,

also got the signatures of Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav. All these purchased lands were

then and till today still in the ownership and possession of Defendants 1 to 3. As

mentioned earlier, on 3/9/1927

Bhaskarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav had bought a land from Nanadhupkar and Rukhmani with

survey number 84/8, with amount of rupees 100/- The Saswad Court had passed an

order to Nanadhupkar upon the application made by Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav of

Rupees 100/- and the same had been made by Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav in the favour

of Nanadhupkar for making the said payment, on the date 3/9/1927. For the said agreement,

Sudhakarrao Shrinivasrao Jadhav was present and he has also made his signatures on the said

papers. From the above agreements, it can be said that the fathers of the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants from the year 1925, are staying separately. Thus, the Partition which took place in

the year 1932 was executed immediately and mutation entries of the same No 773 and 774

were made properly has been clearly proved. The suit property Gat No lands in the said suit,

with gat number 491 and 492 were being made as per new conditions, upon these old

conditions the Defendant number (3), on making a payment of an amount, and by making a

regrant upon the old condition, the mutation entry number is now 192. According to Gat

number 484 the land which was received by Sudhakarrao in course of division of the land, and

also the land received upon the new conditions, Sudhakarrao himself by paying a said amount

got the land made on old terms. The said mutation entry number is 184 .In the present suit, the

said agricultural land bearing Gat No. 491 and 492, belongs to Defendant number (3), which

government granted him personally due to his post of police patil. Keshavrao was the

common ancestor of Plaintiffs and Defendants. He died in the year 1912. Keshavrao was the

mulki patil , from the year 1899 to 1909. At the time of his death, he was not the village

head.

( 34 )

Keshavrao had 3 sons, namely; Shrinivasrao, Ganesh, and Raghav. Shrinivasrao was the eldest

son. Shrinivasrao was the village mulki patl . three years before the death of Keshavrao,

Shrinivasrao was the mulki patil . Shrinivasrao died in the year 1934. Shrinivasrao was the

mulki patil from the year 1909 till the year 1929. Shrinivasrao had two sons; Bhaskarrao and

Sudhakarrao; Bhaskarrao was the elder son, and he was the mulki patil from the year, 1930 to

1960. In the year 1950, Defendant number 3 was appointed as Gumasta, from the year 1950 till

the year 1960 he worked as Gumasta. In the year

1960, Defendant number (3) had been appointed as mulki patil , he worked as mulki patil till the

year 1974. Bhaskarrao died in the year 1973. Thus, the Defendant number 3 was independently

appointed as the Mulki Patil by the Government, and not due to hereditary right, Madhavrao is the

independent owner of Gat No 491 and 492. Having clear idea about all these things, the Plaintiffs

have purposely filed a suit to claim an illegal right over the suit property in order to trouble the

Defendants with mala-fide intention, and filed a false and illegal suit against the Defendants.

Therefore the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is likely to be dismissed with costs.

10. In the said suit property bearing Gat No 491 and 492, the Plaintiffs never had any

ownership or easement rights over the property. Thus there are no valid Grounds for filing of

the suit, as none of the reasons stated by the Plaintiffs in the suit are true.

Therefore the Defendants pleads before this Honorable Court that;

a) The suit to be dismissed with costs.

b) The costs incurred by the Defendants to be paid by the Plaintiffs.

c) Any other order to be passed which the court deems fit in the interest of Justice ,

Equity and good conscience .

Saswad: 1. Signature : Date:

7/9/2001 2. Signature:

Defendants

Signature

Advocate on behalf of

Defendants 1 and 2.

( 35 )

Verification

We have signed below as Defendant number 1 and 2, and we truly state that, in the above

paragraphs from 1 to 11have all the information which is been given by us is true and correct,

and is been verified by us, and is been signed by us in form of thumb impression.

SASWAD

DATE : 7/9/2001

1. SIGNATURE

2. SIGNATURE Defendants

( 36 )

Exh. 30

In the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division , at Saswad

Regular Civil Suit 42/96

Shri Shrinivasrao Sudhakar Rao Jadhav ... Plaintiff

v/s

Shri Keshavrao Bhaskarrao Jadhav ... Defendant

Written Statement and Say to exhibit 5 on behalf of Defendant No 3

11. The suit filed by Plaintiffs is not true and correct, and thus not acceptable to the

Defendants.

12. The suit filed by the plaintiff can’t be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.

13. The boundaries of the suit property given by the plaintiff in Para No 1 of the plaint are

not correct and till they are rectified the suit can’t be entertained .

14. The Plaintiffs averment in Clause 2 are generally true . Clause -3 is absolutely untrue and

dishonestly made, thus not acceptable. Plaintiffs averment that Shrinivasrao was not the Owner of

the suit property and thus he had no legal right and authority to partition the property , the

mutation entries 773 and 774 are illegal and not binding on Plaintiff are untrue and fraudulently

made and thus not acceptable . Also the averments made in the Clause 4 of the Plaint regarding

Gat no 491and 492 that – those properties belonged to Defendant No 3 and thus Defendant No

1 was not the sole owner and it was a Joint Family Property and the Property was taken by the

Joint Family by Regrant Order etc and the claim of the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff had a right to

claim share etc are untrue and made fraudulently thus not acceptable to the Defendant.

15. On the contrary the true and correct position is pleaded herewith-

In 1932 Keshavrao partitioned the ancestral property between his sons Sudhakar Rao (plaintiff’s

Father) and Bhaskarrao (Defendant’s Father). Accordingly the mutation entries were

recorded after proper application was made to the revenue authority dt.8/7/1932 .Since then each

one of them had separate account, right and possession of the property of their share and till

today their legal heirs are enjoying it. After the partition Gat No 491 and 492 were given

to Bhaskarrao (Defendant’s Father). Accordingly Mutation entries were also recorded. Since

then till the date neither Plaintiff’s Father, Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s brother claimed ownership,

possession, right over the said property.

( 37 )

Defendant got the property after the demise of his father. As Defendant was a Police Patil

Government allotted the land (suit property) on old terms solely and absolutely in defendants

favor. Plaintiff had knowledge of this fact still with mala-fide intention and to harass the

defendants the present suit has been filed.

16. There is no cause of Action for the present suit .

Thus Defendant prays to this Hon’ble Court as follows

1) That the Plaintiff’s suit to be dismissed with cost.

2) That to allow cost to the defendant to be paid by plaintiff.

3) That any other order as the court deems fit in interest of justice, equity and good

conscience.

Saswad

7/11/96 Defendant No 3

( 38 )

Exh. 174

In The Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune

Special Civil Suit 417/2004

Mr Shrinivasrao Jadhav ----------------------------------Plaintiff

v/s

Mr. Keshavrao Bhaskarao Jadhav ---------------------Defendant

Written statement on Behalf of Defendant No 5

1) Suit of the plaintiff is untrue, illegal and has been dishonestly filed and thus not

acceptable.

2) The written statement filed by Defendant No 1 and 2 as well as Defendant No 3 (Exhibit

no 30 and 174) and pleadings therein are true and correct. Defendant No 5 also asserts the same

and intends and pleads the same. The averments and pleadings made in Exh. 30 and

134 must be read as a part of Defendant No 5’s written statement also accordingly may be

considered by this Hon’ble Court.

3) Apart from the pleadings mentioned above, Defendant No 5 also pleads that the part of

suit property bearing Gat No 491 (survey no.64/1) was the separate property of Defendant

No 3 and was separately owned and possessed with all rights in the property

.On 30/12/1928 Defendant no 3 sold the said property (Gat No 491) to Defendant No 5 for

consideration of 3, 50,000/- with the registered sale deed. Accordingly Defendant No

5 was put in actual possession of the sold property. After the registered sale transaction the

purchaser was the sole owner and possessor of the property, cultivating the land and also enjoying

the benefits of it.

4) Defendant No. 5 the Purchaser had made all the required and necessary inquiries

reasonably and sufficiently before the registered sale transaction was entered into. Purchaser also

inspected and perused the Mutation entries verifying name of Defendant No.3 as an Owner, also

the actual possession, no entries regarding charge over the said property, no pending litigation was

confirmed. Thus Defendant No. 5 was a bonafide purchaser and owner of the property. Defendant

no 5 had no knowledge about the injunction order of the Hon’ble Court Pune pleaded by the

Plaintiff in Para 7 of his plaint

,till summons was issued by the court . Thus plaintiffs pleading of non-bindingness of the sale

transaction are incorrect, untrue and not at all acceptable to the Defendant .

5) As mentioned above Defendant No 5 is a bonafide purchaser of Gat No 491 and Plaintiff

has no legal right to complain and deny the registered sale transaction.

Thus plaintiffs suit is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed with cost .

( 39 )

Hence, Defendant prays to the Hon’ble Court as follows

1) To reject the plaintiffs prayer of cost .

2) To allow amendment in the written statement as and when necessary .

3) The order of cost to paid by plaintiff to the defendant .

4) And any other order as the court deems fit in interest of justice, equity and good

conscience .

Pune

15/7/2004 Defendant No 5

( 40 )

REFERENCES

1) The Transfer of Property Act 1882 2) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 3) The Limitation Act, 1963 4) Code of Civil Procedure,1908 5) THE BOMBAY HEREDITARY OFFICES ACT, 1874

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/1874.03.pdf

6) THE MAHARASHTRA REVENUE PATELS (ABOLITION OF OFFICE) ACT, 1962.

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/1962.35.pdf