Thus, she claimed the ownership of the property i.e. western half part of the suit property.
After the death of the said purchaser Anjirabai, her husband Guruling Kamble became the owner of the said property and from him the plaintiff appellant had purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.1984.
It is further claimed by the appellant plaintiff that she had spent huge amount and raised companystruction of four rooms after taking the permission of the Nagar Parishad.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2000 by which Second Appeal No.183 of 2000 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and judgments and orders of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have been affirmed.
Both brothers had been living separately and were using their respective half part in the suit premises.
Maruti had two sons, namely, Genu and Dadu.
Krishna Kamble was in possession of eastern half part of the said property.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant filed Civil Suit No.6/87 seeking declaration that she was owner of the western half part of the suit property, i.e. city Survey number83 and in actual physical possession thereof, and further for restraining the defendants respondents to cause any obstruction to her possession over the said property and also for possession of the other part of the property.
Therefore, Housabai companyld number claim any specific share in the property.
As she had number been impleaded as defendant respondent, the suit companyld number be entertained for want of necessary party.
Defendant respondent number.1 and 2 companytested the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that Housabai was a necessary party.
Krishna Kamble died leaving only one son Shripati who died leaving only heir i.e. daughter Housabai.
In fact, said Housabai had sold her share to one Anjirabai Guruling Kamble by registered sale deed dated 13.1.1976.
The said relief was claimed on the basis that the entire CTS number83 was originally owned by Krishna Kamble and Maruti Kamble.
The property had never been partitioned.
Ganapati died issueless.
Appellant plaintiff purchased the property of Krishna Kamble from legal heir Housabai Sitaram Chavan as she became owner of the said property after the death of her father Shripati.
Shri Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble, defendant number1 is the son of Nana and defendant number2 Manik Shankar Kamble is the son of Shankar.
Shri Vijay Kumar, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has raised all the issues which had been raised before the companyrts below and submitted that as the appellant had been a bona fide purchaser for companysideration and had been put in possession by her vendee Anjirabai who had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed from Housabai, the suit ought to have been decreed and has tried to persuade us taking through the pleadings as well as the depositions to allow the appeals.
Genu had three sons, namely Ganapati, Nana and Shankar.
Hence, this appeal.
She companyld be a companysharer in companymon and joint possession.
In absence of the appellant plaintiff, defendant respondent number.3 and 4 occupied the suit property at the instigation of defendant respondent number.1 and 2 and in spite of several requests the possession of the said property was number handed over to her.
Hence, the suit was filed on 4.7.1984 for the aforesaid reliefs.
As the partition had never been effected, the question of handing over of the possession either to the present appellant plaintiff or her vendee companyld number arise.
Dadu died issueless.
