MADHUSUDAN VISHWANATH MULE Vs. GAJANAN VISHWANATH MULE
LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-36
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on October 31,2017

Madhusudan Vishwanath Mule Appellant
VERSUS
Gajanan Vishwanath Mule Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.M.DESHPANDE,J. - (1.) The present appeal is filed against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Malkapur dated 23.4.1998 in Regular Civil Suit No.44 of 1995 which was confirmed by learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge at Buldana on 13.3.2003 in Regular Civil Appeal No.67 of 1998.
(2.) By these two judgments and decrees, both the Courts below dismissed the suit for partition, possession, declaration, and mesne profit filed by the present appellant.
(3.) According to the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are real and stepbrothers and sisters. The plaintiff being in service as a Talathi in Revenue Department was not residing in ancestral village Rohinkhed during his service period. He took voluntary retirement and, thereafter, started demanding his share in the property. The suit was restricted for the following properties: (i) two storeyed house at village Rohinkhed, Taluka Motala, District Buldana; (ii) an open land admeasuring 20'x20' feet adjacent to the house. According to the plaint, these properties were ancestral properties and remained to be partitioned. In the plaint itself, it is averred that ancestral agricultural property at village Rohinkhed was partitioned and accordingly necessary mutation was done in the revenue record. It is stated in the plaint that in respect of the suit property respondent No.1/defendant No.1 Gajanan got mutated his name in the revenue record. It is the further averment in the plaint that since the suit property was not partitioned, he is entitled to 1/5th share in the same. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.