IMPORTANT POINT
Possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, either by the decree of a Court in a partition suit, or by settlement among the co-sharers.

Judgment :

1.1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2000 by which Second Appeal No.183 of 2000 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and judgments and orders of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have been affirmed.

2.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant filed Civil Suit No.6/87 seeking declaration that she was owner of the western half part of the suit property, i.e. city Survey no.83 and in actual physical possession thereof, and further for restraining the defendants/respondents to cause any obstruction to her possession over the said property and also for possession of the other part of the property.

.3. The said relief was claimed on the basis that the entire CTS no.83 was originally owned by Krishna Kamble and Maruti Kamble. Both brothers had been living separately and were using their respective half part in the suit premises. Krishna Kamble was in possession of eastern half part of the said property. Krishna Kamble died leaving only one son Shripati who died leaving only heir i.e. daughter Housabai. Maruti had two sons, namely, Genu and Dadu. Dadu died issueless. Genu had three sons, namely Ganapati, Nana and Shankar. Ganapati died issueless. Shri Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble, defendant no.1 is the son of Nana and defendant no.2 Manik Shankar Kamble is the son of Shankar. Appellant/plaintiff purchased the property of Krishna Kamble from legal heir Housabai Sitaram Chavan as she became owner of the said property after the death of her father Shripati. In fact, said Housabai had sold her share to one Anjirabai Guruling Kamble by registered sale deed dated 13.1.1976. After the death of the said purchaser Anjirabai, her husband Guruling Kamble became the owner of the said property and from him the plaintiff/appellant had purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.1984. Thus, she claimed the ownership of the property i.e. western half part of the suit property. It is further claimed by the appellant/plaintiff that she had

.spent huge amount and raised construction of four rooms after taking the permission of the Nagar Parishad. In absence of the appellant/plaintiff, defendant/respondent nos.3 and 4 occupied the suit property at the instigation of defendant/respondent nos.1 and 2 and in spite of several requests the possession of the said property was not handed over to her. Hence, the suit was filed on 4.7.1984 for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.4. Defendant/respondent nos.1 and 2 contested the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that Housabai was a necessary party. As she had not been impleaded as defendant/respondent, the suit could not be entertained for want of necessary party. The property had never been partitioned. The sale deed executed by Housabai could not be valid and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4.5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed various issues, including whether the plaintiff/appellant was in lawful possession and had valid title over the suit property, and as to whether the defendants/respondents had encroached upon the said property. The parties led evidence and after considering the same, the trial Court came to the conclusion that no partition had ever taken place. Therefore, Housabai could not claim any specific share in the property. She could be a co-sharer in common and joint possession. As the partition had never been effected, the question of handing over of the possession either to the present appellant/plaintiff or her vendee could not arise. Therefore, her possession was merely a forcible possession and was not valid and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.1991. The trial Court observed that at the most on the basis of the sale deed Anjirabai and thereafter appellant/plaintiff could become the owner in common alongwith defendants/respondents in respect of the suit property but as there was no partition, the appellant/plain