The sale deed dated 1 6 1905 was obtained by undue influence.
Original plaintiff number2 who died during the pendency of the suit and on whose death his legal, representative was substituted claimed to be the hereditary Pujari of the deity.
Chinto sold it to original defendant number 2.
Pandurang got property at IC and the rest went to Bala.
Then purchaserspossession over the land sold was, therefore, held to be void and adverse.
The finding of the Trial Court, however, in respect of property at 1E was assailed but without success.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment dated 21 7 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Property at 1E came in possession of the original plaintiffs plaintiff number 1 being Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao.
After her death Pandurang and Bala partitioned the properties purchased by them by the sale deed dated 1 6 1905.
Although specifically the deity was number impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, as observed by the District Judge, Sitara who tried the suit in the first in stance, to all intents and purposes the suit was by the deity and the two Plaintiffs.
968 of 1968.
Pandurang died on the 13th of February, 1911.
On the 1st of June, 1905, however, Ambabai executed a sale deed in respect of all the suit properties except property 1E in favour of Pandurang and Bala.
Thereafter his widow Radhabai sold the property at1C to one Chinto Deshpande.
Defendants companytested the suit on several grounds.
86 of 1966 in F.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave.
It was without legal necessity and was number for the benefit of the Devasthan.
He claimed to be a Manager and hereditary trustee of the deity.
The plaintiffs instituted the suit in the year 1961 with the permission of the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra defendant number 7.
Several issues were framed and tried by the learned District Judge.
Lands at IF, 1G and 1H were endowed by Ambabai to the deity by a deed of endowment executed in January or February 1905.
There were several other transfers inter se between the defendants and ultimately in one form or the other defendants 1 to 6 came to hold one kind of interest or the other in the various suit properties.
It was, therefore, held to be number binding on the Devasthan.
He held that the properties in suit were bequeathed by Ambabai to the deity.
2 and The sales made in the year 1905 as also in the year 1947 were attacked as being void and number binding on the deity.
Property at 1 E have been sold by plaintiff number 1 on the 17th of September, 1947 to original defendant number.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Same were the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the property at 1 The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the Bombay High Court maintained the dismissal in appeal by the plaintiffs.
The finding of the Trial Court that the respective purchasers were in adverse possession of the properties at 1A to 1D and IF to 1H was number attacked.
Ambabai died on the 12th of March, 1910.
Sharhad Manohar and Randhir fain for Respondents Nos.
The suit was instituted under sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Act, to recover possession of the suit properties from defendants 1 to 6.
Udder this deed of endowment, one Pandurang Babaji Pawar was appointed as the Vehivatdar Manager and one Bala Appa Yadava was appointed as a servant of the deity.
The facts are a bit companyplicated.
For the disposal of the present appeal, only a few of them need be stated in a narrow companypass.
A suit for the recovery of the properties was number barred in the year 1955 when section 52A came into force.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
B. Datar and Miss Farhat Quadiri for the Appellant.
On appeal by the plaintiffs, only limited submissions were made by them in the High Court.
Property at 1E had companye in possession of the plaintiffs long time back and plaintiffs number 1 treated the said property as his own.
3rd of December, 1896 in the name of the deity Shri Vithal Rakhumai Dev.
G. Ratnaparkhi for Respondents 1 a to 1 c , 5, 6 a to 6 g .
On the 23rd of June, 1907 Ambabai executed a second Will and in that also she reiterated that Pandurang was being appointed as Vahivatdar and Bala a servant of the deity.
One Ambabai, wife of Chintamanrao Ghatge purchased lands mentioned at items 1A to 1E in the plaint on the.
102 of 1963.
L. Hathi and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No.
