Co-owners cannot claim possession of undivided shares without partition by metes and bounds. Rights to undivided interests can only be enforced through a suit for partition.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the District Judge-1, Karad, Satara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.30 of 2021.

2. Petitioner is the Plaintiff in original Regular Civil SuitNo.208 of 2020. Respondent No.1 is the original Defendant No.1 inthe said suit. Parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants for the sake of convenience.

3. Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.208 of 2020 on18.02.2020 in the Trial Court seeking partition of Plaintiff’s share in the suit property described in paragraph No.1 of the Plaint. Plaintiff also sought injunction against Defendant No.1 to restrain him from entering upon the suit property and from taking forcible possession of the suit property.

4. Such of the relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the present controversy are outlined hereinunder. Suit property originally belonged to one Baburaoji Thorat. After Baburaoji’s demise the suit property devolved upon his sons namely Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.5 and their late brother Vishnu. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the two sons of Vishnu. Thus, Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are blood relations who claimed entitlement in the suit property through their original ancestor late Baburaoji Thorat. Plaintiff is a distant relative of Defendant Nos.2 to 5. Defendant No.1 is not related to the Plaintiff or Defendant Nos.2 to 5. The present dispute is between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 only.

5. Record shows that Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 both are cultivating their respective agricultural lands/property which is in the close vicinity of the suit property.

6. Admittedly, Defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 10.01.2018 conveyed his share in the suit property to the Plaintiff. Accordingly Mutation Entry No.4954 was effected. Thereafter Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.5 also vide Consent Deeds dated 25.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 conveyed their share in the suit property to the Plaintiff. During the same time, Defendant No.3 conveyed his share in the suit property vide Sale Deed dated 03.10.2019 to Defendant No.1. By virtue of the transactions noted above both Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 got proper access to their respective agricultural lands which were in the close vicinity of the suit property.

7. According to the Plaintiff he was put in possession of the entire suit property namely Gat No.40/4A since 2018 and he has cultivated and harvested sugar cane crop during the years 2018 - 2019 and 2019 - 2020 in the entirety of the suit property.

8. According to Plaintiff, in view of sale deed dated 03.10.2019 executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.1, Defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit property. Therefore, Plaintiff was constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No.208 of 2020 in the Trial Court. Plaintiff also filed Application below Exhibit-5 alongwith the suit plaint seeking restraint on Defendant No.1 from disturbing his possession of the suit property.

9. By order dated 30.04.2021, the Trial Court allowed the Application filed below Exhibit-5 and passed an order of restraint against Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved filed the statutory appeal against the order dated 30.04.2021 before the District Court. This Appeal was numbered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2021. Before moving the Appeal, Defendant No.1 filed an Application below Exhibit-15 seeking to refer to and rely upon additional evidence at the appellate stage which was in the nature of producing on record five additional documents. The District Court allowed Exhibit-15 and permitted the Defendant No.1 to refer to and rely upon the five documents i.e. additional evidence. After hearing the parties by order dated 17.09.2021, the District Court set aside the order of injunction dated 30.04.2021 passed below Exhibit-5 by the Trial Court on the principal ground that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 have bo