-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.325 OF 1990.

SECOND APPEAL NO.325 OF 1990.

SECOND APPEAL NO.325 OF 1990.

1. Dagdu Daulata Lakde

2. Smt. Rukminibai Uttam Ladke

both residing at Katraj,

Tal : Karmala,

District : Solapur. .. Appellant

vs.

Jagannath Daulata Lakde

res. at Katraj,

Tal : Karmala,

Dist : Solapur

through his power of Attorney holder

son- Ajinath Jagannath Lakde,

residing at Katraj,

Tal : Karmala,

Dist : Solapur. .. Respondent.

Mr.V.V.Savaji with Prafulla B. Shah, Advocate for

the Appellants.

Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM : S.R.SATHE, J.

CORAM : S.R.SATHE, J.

CORAM : S.R.SATHE, J.

DATED :18TH AUGUST, 2004.

DATED :18TH AUGUST, 2004.

DATED :18TH AUGUST, 2004.

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order

passed by the Court of 4th Additional District

-2-

Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.567 of 1987,

whereby the order passed by the Court of Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Karmala in Regular Civil

Suit No. 101 of 1984 dismissing the plaintiffs’

suit for partition and possession was set aside

and the appeal was allowed, the original

defendants have preferred this appeal. ( For the

sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be

referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.)

2. Brief facts giving rise to this second appeal

are as under :

. The suit land admeasuring 4 Hectares and

91 Ares, 12 Acres and 11 gunthas situated at

Village Katraj, Tal : Karmala, Dist : Solapur

was with the father of the plaintiff and defendant

no.1 namely Daulata Hari Lakde. Daulata died on

6.2.1957. After his death, the name of the

defendant No.1 Dagdu was entered in the record of

rights as manager of a joint family and he started

cultivating the said land. The said family was

also having some other agricultural land.

Partition took place between the plaintiff and

-3-

defendant no.1 in the year 1968-69. However, at

that time the suit land was kept common as at the

relevant time litigation was going one under

B.T.L. Act. Thereafter, according to plaintiff

defendant no.1. entered name of defendant no.2

for the said land in the record of rights. The

plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for

partition and possession.

. The defendants filed their written

statement at exhibit 11 and contended that the

partition of the joint family property has infact

taken place in the year 1962 and at that time the

suit land was alloted to the defendants share.

They also contended that all along defendant no.1

has paid the necessary taxes and has