01. This is an appeal preferred by original plaintiff Sitabai (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs-appellant Nos.A1 to A5) whose suit bearing R.C.S. No.645 of 1978 for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No.1State of Maharashtra from taking possession of the suit land was dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar on 18.12.1982 which judgment and decree was further confirmed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1983 decided on 23.1.1987.

02. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the original plaintiff Sitabai-appellant herein was the wife of original Defendant No.3 Narayanrao Deshmukh who is Respondent No.3 in the second appeal. Northern half portion of the suit land Gat No.197/1 admeasuring 6 hector 88 Ares situated at village Mahegaon Deshmukh is the trust property owned by Respondent No.2 Trust, namely, Goverdhanhari Devasthan Trust, Kopergaon. It is stated that the appellant Sitabai had been in occupation and cultivation of the land in her capacity as tenant. After the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") came into force, Respondent No.1State instituted an enquiry for determining ceiling of lands in respect of Respondent No.3. The Special Deputy Collector, Kopergaon in Ceiling Proceedings bearing No.4/64 decided on 26.4.1965 held that Respondent No.3 was holding surplus land consisted of suit land. However, it is averred by the plaintiff-appellant that the suit land was exempted from the provisions of the Ceiling Act.

03. The plaintiff-appellant Sitabai further averred that in the year 195556, there was oral family arrangement/partition in which the suit land was allotted to her share. In 1964, she filed suit bearing R.C.S. No.205 of 1964 for reopening the said partition and for effecting fresh partition and for possession of the suit property. The said suit was against her husband-present Respondent No.3 and her five sons. It is also the case of the plaintiff-appellant that due to family partition of 1956, joint family status had come to an end and Respondent No.3 had no authority to declare surplus land consisting of the suit land. No notice was given to the plaintiff-appellant. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff bearing R.C.S. No.205 of 1964 was decreed and the suit land was allotted to her share in the partition. In the present suit, the appellant-plaintiff's contention is that she was not party to the ceiling proceedings and so, she sought declaration that the findings recorded by the Special Deputy Collector, Kopergaon in the said Ceiling Proceedings bearing No.4/1964 are not binding on her. She also sought permanent injunction restraining Respondent No.1State from disturbing her possession over the suit land.

04. Respondent No.1 State is the main contesting party. Respondent No.3 has not filed written statement and therefore the suit proceeded exparte against him

05. Respondent No.2Trust through Chief Trustee Vishnu filed written statement at Exhibit 25 and stated that the suit land being the trust property, Respondent No.1State had no authority to decide the Ceiling Proceedings and declare the suit land to be surplus land of Respondent No.3. Thus, Respondent No.2 supported the case of the plaintiff-appellant.

06. On the basis of rival contentions as above, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the suit property was not belonging to the plaintiff; the suit property was not exempted under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act; R.C.S. no.205 of 1964 filed by plaintiff Sitabai was not filed by her in collusion with husband-Respondent No.3. It is held by the trial court that the decision of the Special Deputy Collector and superior courts in ceiling proceedings are binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed and,