RAMJIDAS AGRAWAL Vs. KUSUM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25-04-2009 (Annexure P-1), by which the Executing Court allowed the application of the objectors.

(2.) THE petitioner-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of contract against Dropadi Bai. During pendency of the suit, Dropadi Bai was died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The petitioner- plaintiff pleaded that the suit property was received by Dropadi Bai during his mother vide a "Will". On 05-10-1979 Dropadi Bai executed an agreement to sale the house in a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-.

(3.) THE petitioner-decree holder filed execution proceedings for execution of decree and also recovery of possession. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondents No. 1 to 4 filed objections to the effect that the judgment and decree obtained by the petitioner- plaintiff by playing fraud. The owner of the property was Shivajirao Bhonsle S/o. Shri Umajirao Bhonsle. He executed two sale deeds on 13/12/1982 and 14/11/1982 in favour of the objectors in regard to suit property and possession of property was handed over to them. Since then, the objectors are in possession of the suit property and their names have also been recorded as owner of the house in the record of Municipal Corporation. Nobody objected about the same. They further pleaded that at the time of compromise, the legal representatives of Dropadi Bai were not in possession over the suit property. The decree-holder also filed a suit before the Third Additional District Judge against the objectors which was registered as Civil Suit No.5-A/2002. That was also dismissed. Earlier, Umajirao Bhonsle filed a suit against Dropadi Bai which was registered as Civil Suit No.8-A/1964 and the First Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 08-07-1968 decreed the suit to the effect that Umajirao Bhonsle was owner of the suit property. It is further pleaded that in another Civil Suit No.35-A/2001[Umajirao Vs. Ramjidas], the Court of 10th Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13-09-2004 held that Indra Bai had no right and interest of ownership in the suit property, hence, she had no right to execute the ''Will''. The trial Court after considering the facts of the case, allowed the application.