1. By this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original defendants) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nashik, allowing Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010 filed by the respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2007, passed by the learned trial Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 2007 and passing a decree of partition in respect of the suit property and other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under.

2. The parties are described in this judgment as per their original status in Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 2007. Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 2007 was filed by the respondent no. 1 herein against Punja Rama Dodake and another. During the pendency of the appeal, Punja Rama Dodake expired leaving behind his legal heirs and representatives, who are the appellants in this second appeal.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 lived in a joint family and had ancestral properties being Old Gat No. 63, 67 and 35 which were in the name of the common ancestor late Ramji Janku Bodke. After the demise of the said Ramji Janku Bodke, the properties were mutated in the name of the father of the plaintiff Vithoba Ramji Bodke being the Karta and eldest son of the Ramji Janku Bodke. The father of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 being brothers, jointly cultivated the aforesaid three properties until 1973 as members of the joint family. It was the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff had raised loan against the said properties from various financial institutions in the interest of joint family which could not be repaid timely. There was a dispute amongst the family members. Sometimes in the year 1973, the family settlement was arrived at pertaining to all joint properties.

4. It was the case of the plaintiff that as per the terms of the said family settlement, both the brothers started cultivating the land separately and were in possession accordingly. The terms of the settlement were reduced to writing in a deed dated 19th January, 1975. However, there was no actual measurement and partition in respect of both the properties by metes and bound. The effect of the said family settlement was not given in the records of the right. On 13th April, 1998, the father of the plaintiff Vithoba Ramji Bodke expired. It was the case of the plaintiff that after demise of the father of the plaintiff, the properties which had come to the share of the father of the plaintiff in the partition and in possession came to the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of land bearing Gat No. 37 and Gat No. 34. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing Gat No. 34 was a grass land. The plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were enjoying the property by cultivating and cutting grass.

5. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 however installed a pipeline into the said plot of land and brought some portion under cultivation. In the month of June 2006, the plaintiff insisted that the boundaries of their each share be fixed and to bring the land under cultivation. The defendant no. 1 however claimed the exclusive owner of the entire suit property and refused to carry out measurement. The plaintiff thereafter obtained the documents from the revenue record on 17th July, 2006. It was learnt by the plaintiff that after the loan was repaid by his father in the year 1982, defendant no. 1 misrepresented and practiced fraud upon the father of the plaintiff and got some documents and affidavit executed from the father of the plaintiff and by misusing those documents got effected the mutation entry no. 496 dated 19th August, 1984 in his exclusive name in respect of the entire suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the fath