JUDGMENT - S.D. PANDIT, J.:-Original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 133 of 1976 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, have come in Second Appeal.

2. The suit property consists of an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 308/4, admeasuring 78 acres of village Vikhale, Taluka Khatav, District Satara.

3. Respondent-plaintiff came before the Court with the case that the said property was of the ownership of Sonatai Bali Ghadge and that she was in occupation and possession of the said property as its owner since the year 1955-1956 and she sold the said property to him for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- on 1st of January, 1976 and put him in possession of the same and since then he is in occupation and possession of the said property, but the defendant No. 1 - Abasaheb, who is the son of Bali Pandurang Gharge, is trying to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the said property along with his wife and, therefore, he sought a decree for perpetual injunction.

4. The defendants-appellants contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written-statement at Exhibit 15. They denied the claim of the plaintiff that the property in question was of the ownership, possession and enjoyment of his vendor Sonatai and that Sonatai had sold the same for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and had put the plaintiff in possession of the same. They further contended that the plaintiff has neither title nor is he in possession of the suit property. They contended that the property in question was an ancestral property of Bali Pandurang Gharge and defendant No. 1 - Abasaheb being the only son of Bali Pandurang Gharge was in enjoyment and possession of the said property during the lifetime of his father as well as thereafter and that the plaintiff and even Sonabai, who was the kept mistress of his father, had no right, title and interest in the said property. The defendant No. 1 - Abasaheb therefore, sought the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit with costs.

5. In view of the rival pleadings, the trial Court had settled issues at Exhibit 18 and recorded evidence for both the sides. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had title as well as possession of the property in question. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit in toto.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision the present appellant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1982 in the District Court of Satara and the said appeal was dismissed on 12th April, 1984 by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and that has brought the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2, before this Court.

7. It is the claim of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1s father Bali Pandurang Gharge had transferred the property in question of his vend for, Sonatai as it was her own property, and Sonabai has become the owner of the said property on account of a mutation entry made by the father of the appellant-defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has produced on record the certified copy of the Mutation Entry No. 2053 at Exhibit 45. In the said mutation entry it is shown that on 3rd of September, 1956 Bali Pandurang Gharge had given a Vardi application and by the said Vardi application he asked deletion of his name against the lands of village Vikhale mentioned in the application and to enter the name of Sonatai Joti Ghadge as the owner of the said property. The said mutation entry was certified as Bali Pandurang Gharge had admitted the correctness of the said Vardi application on 29th September, 1956. The said mutation entry as well as the entries in the extracts of the record of rights show the name of Sonatai Joti Ghadge in the Kabjedar column as well as in the Crop column. Therefore, in view of the said entries, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have held that Sonatai was in occupation and possession of the property in question from the year 1955-56 till she executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and since the date of the said sale deed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document