ORDER :

V.K. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner below Exhibit 47 in Regular Darkhast No. 358 of 2012 (old No. 50 of 2001), the petitioners-original decree holders have preferred this Writ Petition.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as follows:

a. On the basis of the decree passed in L.R.A. 175 of 1991 dated 10.01.2001, the petitioners had filed Regular Darkhast No. 358 of 2012 (old R.D. No. 50 of 2001) on 25.10.2001. In the pending Darkhast, respondent No. 1 herein had filed application below Exhibit 42 for adding him as objector. By order dated 03.03.2014 passed below Exhibit 42, his application came to be allowed. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 original objector had filed application Exhibit 47 contending therein that in terms of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 28 of 1989 and 57 of 1989, which has attained finality, the petitioners/decree holders are entitled for compensation to the extent of the suit house and the well which they have already withdrawn and in terms of the decree passed in the aforesaid suits, they are not entitled for the compensation for acquisition of the suit lands. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division by order dated 04.10.2016 below Exhibit 47 in Regular Darkhast No. 358 of 2012, allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 original objector with costs and further held that in terms of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 28 of 1989 and 57 of 1989, defendant Nos. 1 to 9 shown in the said suits are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation except for the compensation for the house and the well under the award. Learned Judge of the executing court has recorded the findings to the effect that respondent No. 1/original objector is entitled to receive enhanced compensation amount awarded on the basis of the award in L.R.A. No. 175 of 1991 except for the compensation awarded for the house and the well situated in the acquired land which has already been withdrawn by the petitioners/decree holders. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/decree holders have preferred this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 34, 34-a, 34-b and 127 situated at village Digambar, Taluka Akole were originally belonging to one Madhavrao Potnis. Madhavrao Potnis died in the year 1955 and after his demise, Krushnarao Madhavrao Potnis started looking after and managing the joint family property i.e. the suit lands and other properties that belonged to the joint family as manager or karta of the joint family. The suit lands are the pasture lands and are used for grazing cattle. Sometime in the year 1964, said Krushnarao Madhavrao Potnis and other legal heirs of Madhavrao Potnis agreed to sale the suit lands to the father of respondent No. 1 Baburao Titame for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and on 23.11.1964, executed an agreement to sale for and on behalf of himself and other legal heirs of Madhavrao Potnis, in his capacity as manager of the joint Hindu family, for Rs. 5,000/- and accepted an earnest amount of Rs. 1,000/- from Baburao Titame with assurance that the said transaction would be completed by executing a sale deed up to 01.02.1965. The remaining consideration of Rs. 4,000/- was to be paid at the time of sale deed. It was agreed that Baburao Titame should retain possession of the suit lands. On 19.12.1964, the other legal heirs sent a notice through their counsel and informed Baburao Titame that Krashnarao Madhavrao Potnis had no authority to act as karta of the joint Hindu family and any agreement executed by him was not binding on them. Baburao Titame replied the notice and also called upon all of them, including Krushnarao Madhavrao Potnis to accept Rs. 4,000/- and to execute the sale deed. On their failure to comply with the notice, Baburao Titame had instituted a suit be