JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

1. Heard both learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2006, original plaintiffs came in second appeal. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were appellants in first appeal as well as defendants of original suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Regular Civil Suit No. 19/1998 was for declaration of title over suit land described in para 1A, 1B of the plaint and for perpetual injunction to restrain defendants from interfering into plaintiffs peaceful possession.

4. Shown unnecessary details, the facts can be stated as follows.

5. The suit property was comprising of various pieces of agricultural land and house property as described in para 1A and 1B of the plaint. Though the property described in para 1C was included in plaint, however, plaintiffs have claimed relief about property described in para 1A and 1B of the plaint which was referred as suit property. The entire suit property was initially owned by one Rama Ramteke. Plaintiff No. 1 Kewalram was nephew of original owner Rama. One Gunabai was legally wedded wife of Rama. Since couple was issueless, somewhere in the year 1965 Rama brought a widowed lady namely Baijabai to reside with him. Moreover, Rama also brought his nephew Kewalram (Plaintiff No. 1) in his childhood to reside with him as a "Balpose" (nurtured from childhood). As such, Rama, his wife Gunabai, Plaintiff No. 1 Kewalram and a widowed lady Baijabai were residing together till Rama's death of the year 1981. Matrimonial relationship of Rama with Gunabai was subsisting till Rama's death. Rama never remarried to Baijabai at any point of time. Rama being issueless, had bequeathed suit property to plaintiffs by executing Will dated 17.06.1981.

6. After demise of Rama, plaintiffs started to cultivate suit land. Plaintiff No. 1 Kewalram was looking after Gunabai, Baijabai and other family members. Though he acquired the title by way of testamentary document of Will, however he had not mutated his name to the Revenue Record of suit property. Latter on due to differences, Baijabai went to reside with her children begotten from her deceased husband Tukaram Khobragade and died there on 10.09.1995. Defendants who are children of Baijabai from Tukaram got mutated name of Baijabai to the Revenue Record of suit property. Thereafter on the strength of Will allegedly executed by Baijabai, defendants got mutated their name to the revenue record of suit property along with Gangubai. When Gunabai came to know about said mutation, she had approached to the Revenue Authorities. Tahasildar had confirmed the mutation in the name of defendants. Gangubai challenged the same to the Sub Divisional Officer and then to the Additional Collector. Since civil suit was pending, the Additional Collector has not interfered with the controversy but directed to resolve the dispute in Civil Court.

7. According to plaintiffs, they acquired ownership by way of Will executed by Rama and then by another Will executed by Gunabai. The plaintiffs were peacefully possessing suit property for a long period. However, defendants by virtue of false and bogus Will allegedly executed by Baijabai had altered revenue entries and tried to disturb plaintiffs' peaceful possession. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration of ownership and for injunction.

8. Defendants resisted suit claim by denying the plaintiffs exclusive ownership. It is denied that Rama had adopted plaintiff No. 1 Kewalram during his lifetime. Both testamentary documents executed by Rama as well by Gunabai were denied. Defendants came with a case that as Rama had no issue from Gunabai, he remarried with Baijabai somewhere in the year 1950. After demise of Rama, his two widows i.e. Gunabai and Baijabai became the joint owner of suit property as second marriage was preceding to the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accord