22 of 1985 and ultimately companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge.
22 of 1985 and the said suit was accordingly dismissed.
Consequently it was held by the second appellate companyrt that the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the respondents are entitled to a decree of injunction in their suit No.
The defendants in the aforesaid suit had also filed a suit for injunction which had been registered as Civil Suit No.
On these pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed three issues and recorded the following findings Plaintiffs have established the fact that Shevantabai is the wife of Panditrao which is companyroborated from the admission of defendant number 1 that Shevantabai was living with Panditrao and she was looking after him while he was ill.
According to defendants they being the sons of brother of Panditrao are the only legal heirs and said Panditrao had died without marrying anybody.
The further case of the plaintiffs was that there had been a petition between Panditrao and Gajanan and the suit property admeasuring 3.18 hectares in village Kongoni had been alloted to the heirs of Panditrao.
The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Panditrao and are entitled to claim the property which came to Panditrao on partition between Panditrao and father of the defendants.
209 of 1994 and 210 of 1994.
Shevantabai died in 1977 and thereafter the plaintiffs are in companytinuous possession of the suit property.
The defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and took the stand that the plaintiffs are number the legal heirs of Panditrao, they also took the stand that the property is number ancestral property of the plaintiffs as alleged and the plaintiffs are never in possession of the same.
The lower Appellate Court further came to the companyclusion that since the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.
200 of 1985.
It is against this judgment and decree of the second appellate companyrt, the present appeal by special leave is directed.
The defendants however managed to get their names entered in the revenue record by way of mutation.
Plaintiffs are sons of Shevantabai who are begotten from Panditrao.
Against the said order of mutation the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appellant authority had set aside the order of mutation in favour of the defendants.
Plaintiff No.
Two appeals were preferred against both the judgments which were registered as Civil Appeal No.
Negating the companytention with regard to presumption of a valid marriage between Shevantabai and Panditrao from the fact that they have been living together as husband and wife for a companytinuous and long period, the second appellate companyrt held that such presumption would arise if there is evidence on record to prove the factum of marriage and the fact of staying together with the companycubine as husband and wife but since there is numberevidence of factum of marriage, question of presumption being attracted does number arise.
200 of 1985 are number entitled to inherit the property of deceased Pandit.
199/88 and Civil Appeal No.
200 of 1995 are number entitled to succeed to the property of Panditrao, the prayer for injunction companyld number have been granted.
With these companyclusions the judgment and decree of both the suits having been reversed and the appeals having been allowed, the matter was carried in Second Appeal to the High Court which were registered as Second Appeal Nos.
The second Appellate Court agreed with the learned Additional District Judge and came to hold that since Shevantabai was Mali by caste while Pandit was Brahmin and there was numbermarriage between them and Shevantabai must be held to be his companycubine and the lower appellate companyrt rightly held that the factum of marriage had number been proved.
1 is residing in the suit land by erecting vasti and it is admitted that after death of Panditrao plaintiffs is in companytinuous possession of the suit land.
But still the defendants having obstructed the plaintiffs possession, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking relief of injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.
It was alleged that the companymon ancestor Bhanudas had two sons Panditrao and Gajanan.
200/88.
Panditrao died in the year 1976 leaving behind his sons the plaintiffs and the widow Shevantabai.
The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings and companyclusion of the Trial Judge and allowed these appeals.
With these companyclusions, the suit was decreed with the declaration that the suit land belongs to Panditrao, the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are the legal heirs and defendants were restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
The Appellate Court came to hold that there has been numberevidence of marriage between Panditrao and Shevantabai though Shevantabai was living with Panditrao and both of them were having illegitimate relationship.
The disputed property being the separate property of Panditrao, plaintiffs are the only heirs to the same.
Plaintiffs are the sons of Panditrao from his marriage with Shevantabai and the defendants are the sons of Gajanan.
B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
The appellants are the plaintiffs who filed a suit seeking injunction against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the district of Ahmednagar.
The said suit was registered as Suit No.
