1 Balkisan and his step brother Hanumandas who is number represented by respondent 2 , were joint owners of a structure admeasuring approximately 48 x 27 at Dhule, Maharashtra.
A numberice was given to the appellant by the execution companyrt, her husband having died in the meanwhile, to remove those move ables, but she did number do so.
1 applied for execution of the decree obtained by him and, in 1971, he succeeded in obtaining possession of the suit premises.
It appears that there were certain moveable properties in the premises, companysisting of parts of the flour mill which the appellants husband was running.
Radhabai, the step mother of Hanumandas, also filed a suit for eviction of Mangaldas in respect of the portion which had fallen to Hanumandas share.
The appellants husband Mangaldas Chunilal, who was in possession thereof as a tenant, was companyducting a flour mill in the said premises.
That suit was decreed by the trial companyrt and the decision therein, number having been appealed from, has become final.
Mangaldas filed an appeal against that decree and he succeeded in the District Court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
The trial companyrt had decreed Suit No.
2 which were also dismissed eventually by the High Court.
247 of 1965 filed by respondent No.
247 of 1965 against Mangaldas asking for possession of the particular portion of the property which had fallen to his share.
Special leave to appeal was dismissed against respondent No.
2685 of 1967 in the High Court of Bombay which was allowed and respondent 1s suit for eviction was decreed.
1 and leave was granted against respondent No.
1 also.
were then removed to the companyrt where they were lying from 1971 till 1975.
In about 1975, they were sold in an auction to respondent No.
l, however, filed Spl.
That application was taken through all its stages and ultimately, Civil Revision Application No.
I filed Suit No.
521 of 1979 filed by her was dismissed by the High Court.
Being aggrieved by the companymon judgment dated Feb. 29, 1980 delivered by the High Court in the two Revision Applications, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The appellant then took proceedings in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Dhule, against respondent No.
That was Suit No.
The move ables.
234 of 1966.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
Civil Appln.
Respondent No.
2 for Rs.
1,851.
The appellant took similar proceedings against respondent No.
