LALASAHEB KRISHNA MORE & ANR Vs. KEDARI RAU DESAI DECEASED THROUGH LRS
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Lalasaheb Krishna More And Anr
Kedari Rau Desai Deceased Through Lrs
Click here to view full judgement.
Sadhana S.Jadhav, J. -
(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.
(2.) The petitioners herein impugns the order dated 3.3.2014 passed by the District Judge-1, Karad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.540 of 2000. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are as follows :-
One Kedari Rau Desai had filed Regular Civil Suit No.169 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Karad. The original defendant was Lalasaheb Krishna More i.e. the present petitioner No.1, who happens to be the son-in-law of Kedari Rau Desai. The plaintiff was seeking possession of the properties mentioned at paragraphs 1A and 1B of the plaint. The second prayer was for mesne profits. It was contended in the plaint that due to old age, the plaintiff could not cultivate his land and therefore, his son-in-law was cultivating the lands. It was stated that the suit properties mentioned in the plaint are self-acquired and ancestral properties. It was contended that the son-in-law i.e. the defendant had been managing the affairs of the plaintiff. It was further contended that on 25.10.1983, the defendant had fraudulently obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on a stamp paper. They were not permitted to read the said documents. They had signed the said document before the Sub-Registrar assuming that it pertained to managing the affairs of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the defendant had mutated his name in the Revenue records on the basis of a gift deed. That the plaintiff had specifically contended that they had been cheated and their signatures were obtained on a gift deed. The cause of action was stated as on 3.3.1988 when the plaintiff had learnt that the plaintiff has been cheated by the original defendant. It is pertinent to note that there was no specific prayer clause regarding seeking a declaration that the gift deed be declared as null and void or that the gift deed executed in favour of the defendant shall stand cancelled. The plaintiff had only claimed possession from the defendant and the mesne profits.
(3.) That the suit was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 5.1.1995. It is pertinent to note that after institution of the suit, the plaintiff had expired and hence his other three daughters and his wife were brought on record as legal heirs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the original plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Appeal No.540 of 2000.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.