The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the entitlement to shares in the suit property based on family arrangements, separate cultivation, and the legal provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, particularly Section 32g and Section 40.

( 1 ) SO far as Civil Application Nos. 1363 of 2006 and Civil application No. 41 of 2005 are concerned, they are for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Arjun Maruti Sathe who is said to have died on 10th january 2003. For the reasons stated in both the Civil Applications, the same are allowed. Abatement if any stands set aside. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

( 2 ) THESE two appeals are preferred by the original Defendant no. 1. They arise out of a Single Judgment in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1983. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the Plaintiff and the defendants.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are as under : the suit property originally belonged to one Maruti. He left behind him four sons and a widow. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 are the sons of said Maruti. Defendant No. 6 is the widow of said Maruti while Defendant No. 2 is the son of deceased Laxman the son of Maruti, and Defendant No. 3 is the widow of deceased Laxman. Defendant No. 4 ramrao is the son of deceased Sahebrao the son of Maruti. Defendant no. 5 is the widow of deceased Sahebrao. The first wife of Maruti died leaving behind her one son Sahebrao. Sahebrao started residing separately even prior to the death of Maruti. The Plaintiff contended that since then Sahebrao and his family has no concern with the suit property. It is therefore the case of the Plaintiff that Sahebrao had already taken his share and therefore he is not entitled for any share in the suit property, but he has been made party to the suit only to avoid there being objection of nonjoinder. The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff and the defendants have 1/3rd share in the suit property. After the death of maruti, Defendant No. 1 Sarjerao became a Karta of the joint family. He too has 1/3rd share in the suit property. The Plaintiff further contends that the property as described in Schedule1a was divided between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 equally and they have been cultivating the said land separately. It is further contended by the plaintiff that there was already partition and accordingly mutation entries Nos. 1510 and 1511 were taken. In order to take disadvantage of death of his brother laxman and his recording own name in the revenue record, the defendant No. 1 got those entries cancelled. Further the plaintiff contends that the property at Schedule1a was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 as karta and being a tenant of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 has purchased the said property under Section 32g of the bombay Tenancy Act as a karta of the joint family and the Plaintiff and the defendants have 1/3rd share in the same although the proceedings under section 32g were taken up only in the name of defendant No. 1. It is also contended that the properties at Schedule 1b and 1c are ancestral properties and they are also being cultivated separately under family arrangement. The Plaintiff further submits that he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property and same may accordingly be partitioned.

( 4 ) THE defendants No. 2 and 3 have filed their written statements and contended that they have 1/3rd share in the suit property and asked for separate possession thereof. Defendant No. 4 also claims that he may be given his share in all the properties except property at Schedule 1a. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 have filed their written statement. The defendant Nos. 1 and 6 do not dispute the relationship between the parties. They do not dispute that the property i. e Gat No. 155 described in schedule 1a was a tenanted property. According to them, the Defendant no. 1 alone was the tenant and he himself has purchased the property and nobody has share in it. Further according to them, the part of the said Gat No. 155 which was formerly Survey No. 189 has been purchased by him under a registered sale deed and, therefore he is exclusive owner thereof. The defendants further submits that in the year 1945 there was a partition and each of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document