IMPORTANT POINT
The possession of one co-owner is legally considered possession for all co-owners, and an injunction cannot be granted against co-owners unless there is proof of ouster.

JUDGMENT

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. - The Appellants before this Court are the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who are dissatisfied by the Judgment dated 23rd August, 2011 passed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2007 allowing the Appeal of the Plaintiffs and restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from obstructing the Plaintiffs possession over the suit property and from entering into the suit property. Vide order dated 21st June, 2013 the Appeal was admitted by this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

2. Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 2003 was instituted by the Plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction from disturbing the Plaintiffs possession and from entering the suit property. The Plaintiffs came with a case that the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and Vilas are the daughters and son respectively of Shankar Dhondi Gadkari who expired on 15th October, 1976. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the wife and daughter of Vilas. Vilas expired on 17th May, 2003 leaving behind him the Plaintiffs as legal heirs. Defendant No. 1 claims to be the wife of Vilas and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 claim to be children of Vilas, however, they have no concern with suit property or Vilas.

3. The suit land was tenanted land which was being cultivated by Shankar during his lifetime and thereafter by Vilas, Shankar's wife and Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. As Vilas was the male member of the family, his name was entered into the crop cultivation column. The suit property is in the possession of the Plaintiffs since their ancestors under the tenancy laws. As the land was Inam land and not re-granted, proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were deferred. The original landlord by suppressing the fact that the suit land was not re-granted obtained order in his favour in Section 32G proceedings on 13th April, 1977.

Appeal was preferred by Plaintiffs which was allowed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order of payment of regrant amount and to commence the Section 32 G proceedings.

4. The original landlord in collusion with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and by taking advantage of the liquor addiction of Vilas prepared a forged and fabricated compromise deed which was registered bearing No. 1707 on 3rd May, 2003. On the basis of the compromise deed, the original landlord claims to have sold half share of the suit land to Defendant No. 5 by sale deed dated 9th July, 2003, which is in violation of the Tenancy Act. For the purpose of challenging the sale deed, the Plaintiffs have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the advice of the Defendant No. 5 and the original landlord are obstructing the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property. Hence the suit for perpetual injunction.

5. The suit came to be resisted by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It was contended that Defendant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Vilas and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are his children. The name of Defendant No. 1 is recorded in the Ration Card and the Voter List as wife of Vilas and in the school documents, the name of Vilas is shown as the father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The Plaintiff No. 3 is not the legally wedded wife of Vilas and taking advantage of certain acquaintance, claims to be the wife of Vilas. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are married and residing elsewhere. Plaintiff No. 3 is residing with her brother and Plaintiff No. 4 is residing at her matrimonial house. Vilas and original landlord had entered into compromise terms under which 1/2 share being the western portion of the suit property was given to Vilas and 1/2 share being the eastern portion was retained by landlord. The original landlord sold his half share of the suit property to Defendant No. 5 by registered sale deed and Defendant No. 5 is in possession of the same. Vilas expired suddenly on 17th May, 2003 and the western portion of the suit property