KRISHNA KESU PAWAR Vs. JAYASING GANAPATI MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Krishna Kesu Pawar, the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 1974 on the file of the Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Karad, has come in Second Appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE suit property consists of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 13 Hissa No. 2 and Survey No. 14 Hissa No. 1 which is converted into Gut Nos. 32 and 34 of village Chargaon. The suit property was the Patil Vatan Lands. The suit property was belonging to one Raju Mane. He had no male heir but he left behind him his widow Ambubai Raju Mane and daughter Gojabai w/o Rama Pawar. The land in question was gifted by Ambubai Raju Mane in favour of her daughter Gojabai Rama Pawar on 6th December, 1886 and the said Gojabai Rama Pawar had two sons i. e. Kesu and Bali. Kesu is the father of the present appellant Krishna Kesu Pawar. Bali died without any heir. The plaintiffs case is that the said land was continued in occupation and possession of his great grand father Raju Mane. After the death of Raju Mane, it was possessed by his great grand mother Ambubai Raju Mane and thereafter it came in possession of the grand mother Gojabai Rama Pawar and after Gojabai Rama Pawar, it came into possession of the plaintiffs father and then came into possession of the present appellant-original plaintiff Krishna Kesu Pawar. On 10th September, 1937 the Revenue Officer held that the gift deed in favour of Gojabai is illegal. He held that Kesu son of the Gojabai to remain in possession of the said land on payment of "kamal Rent". Thereafter, Maharashtra Revenue Patils (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 came into force on 4th September, 1962. After the said Act came into force, it seems by an Order dated 26th January, 1971 the said land was regranted by Tahsildar, Karad to the respondent No. 7 on payment of occupancy price. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the suit to get a decree of perpetual injunction.

(3.) THE claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement at Exhibit 23. They have contended that the plaintiff was not at all in possession of the land in question and that too they are not in possession and occupation even after the regrant of the said lands. Therefore, the defendants have sought dismissal of the plaintiffs suit.