SOCIEDADE PATRIOTICA DOS BALDIOS DAS NOVAS COONQUISTAS Vs. SUDHAKAR SANGUN BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant. The respondents who were duly served, have chosen to remain absent, continuously.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/1994. The said civil suit was filed by the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents and the same was decreed by the trial Court by judgment/decree dated 28-11-2003. The defendants having filed an appeal to the District Court, the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge then directed that the claim of tenancy taken by the respondents be referred to the Mamlatdar for his determination. It is this order which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff is the owner of a property surveyed under No. 84/0. The defendants reside in the house which is shown by letter V-1 in form I and XIV in the name of Yeshwant Sagun Bhandari who is the grand father of the defendant and who had two brothers by name Sagun who was the father of the defendant No. 1 and Datta who was the father of the defendant No. 2 and the said house was later divided by the two brothers namely Datta and Sagun and the divisions carried House Nos. 285 and 286 respectively. When the defendant No. 1 tried to occupy a plinth of 25.29 mtrs. etc., the plaintiffs filed a suit and obtained an ex parte interim injunction. The present suit was filed with the allegations that the defendants on or about 18-7-1994 planted cashew saplings in the said property of the plaintiff. In the written statement filed, the defendant No. 1 took a plea that they were tenants along with their family members and were now deemed purchasers of the part of the property bearing Survey No. 84/0 and as such the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. No issue on the said plea was framed by the trial Court but it appears that this point was argued for the first time before the learned Additional District Judge who was pleased to direct the framing of such an issue and direct that the same be decided by the Mamlatdar.