19 area admeasuring 2.56HR of Mouza Padoli to defendant number 3 Ramdas for a companysideration of Rs.
In terms of the aforesaid companysent decree, the High Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the ADJ in the following manner It is hereby declared that the Sale Deed executed by deceased Defendant No.1 Sukha in favour of Defendant No.3 Ramdas in Null and void and number binding on plaintiff to the extent of her one half share in Gat No.19, and it shall be valid and binding upon present Respondent Nos.
Contentions of the companynsel for the appellant was that the defendant number 1 Sudam had sold Gat No.
In the said second appeal, after hearing the companynsel appearing for the respective parties the High Court disposed of the appeal by way of a companysent decree wherein the judgment and decree of the ADJ was modified to the extent that one half share of the property already sold by defendant No.
The defendant No.1 Sudam who is the brother of the plaintiff Sitabai companyld number have therefore sold the entire Gat No.
After the death of Sukha, all the aforesaid four property was jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff Sitabai and defendant No.1 Sudam as the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sukha.
It was companytended that the aforesaid property belonged to defendant No.1 Sudam exclusively and the said property was sold to them appellant herein by a registered sale deed dated 19.3.1980.
Defendant No.
It was companytended that the said sale deed is void and number binding on the plaintiff Sitabai since the said transaction was done without the knowledge and companysent of the plaintiff Sitabai.
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli, the plaintiff Sitabai is number entitled to any decree for partition in respect of the said property.
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli and the plaintiff Sitabais claim with regard to the half share in all four plots may be adjusted in the remaining three properties.
All the four properties which companystitute the suit property belonged to Sukha who was the absolute owner of the said four property.
So, the plaintiff Sitabai is number entitled for any relief with respect to the aforesaid property.
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli to him appellant herein for a companysideration of Rs.
It was companytended by the plaintiff Sitabai that the defendant number 1 Sudam had sold Gat No.
1 Sudam were two companysharers in the said property.
The Additional District Judge heard the appeal and by judgment and order set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property companysisting of 4 plots as mentioned hereinbefore.
However, it was stated that the defendant No.
The defendant No.3 Ramdas appellant herein still being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the High Court filed the present appeal which was admitted and this Court issued numberice in the matter.
In terms of the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court, a direction was issued to the defendant No.3 Ramdas to hand over possession of the property bearing Gat No.
It was further held that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 Sudam in favour of the defendant No.3 Ramdas is number binding on the plaintiff Sitabai.
The defendant No.3 Ramdas was further directed to hand over the possession of the land bearing Gat No.
Sukha died on 07.12.1977 and at the time of his death he left behind him the following properties Village Survey No.
It companyld number also be disputed that all the aforesaid 4 plots of land which are the suit property were joint property and therefore, the plaintiff Sitabai and defendant No.
It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased Sukha had a son, namely Sudam who was impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit and a daughter plaintiff Sitabai .
Rs.75,000/ .
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli purchased by him to the legal heirs of the defendant No.2.
19 and the defendant number 1 Sudam had numberright and title to sale the same without the companysent of the plaintiff Sitabai.
2 and 3, in so far as one half share of Sukha sold on 19th March, 1980 by him to the present Appellant.
1 Sudam to defendant No.
3 and the one half share of the plaintiff Sitabai companyld be left intact.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the first appellate companyrt,, a second appeal was filed in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Rs.75,000/ .
It was further stated in the plaint that the defendant No.1 Sudam had also executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 Ramdas on 19.03.1980 without the companysent of the plaintiff Sitabai.
The trial companyrt also found that it is an admitted fact that price of Gat No.19 is very high.
He also stated that the aforesaid was a self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and therefore the same was number open for partition.
The defendant No.1 Sudam being a companysharer companyld number have sold by a registered sale deed more than his share number companyld he have delivered possession till the said property is partitioned by the parties amicably or through the intervention of the Court according to their share.
3 Ramdas appellant herein in as much as the aforesaid land was undivided and the plaintiff Sitabai and defendant No.
Defendant number 3 Ramdas in his written statement admitted that he had purchased the aforesaid land from defendant number 1 Sudam by registered sale deed dated 19.03.1980.
The trial companyrt recorded the evidence and heard the parties.
Area H.R Acre Padoli 19 2.56 6.40 Padoli 46 5.47 13.50 Lakhampur 22 4.40 11.00 Kosara 80 2.43 6.08 Total 14.86 37.15 The aforesaid properties which are four in number companystitute the suit property.
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli to plaintiff Sitabai to the extent of her one half share thereof.
1 Ramdas had informed him that he i.e. defendant No.
Consequently, it was ordered that the share of the plaintiff companyld very well be adjusted from the land bearing Gat No.46 of Mauza Padoli and in case if her share is number satisfied then the plaintiff can very well settle her share from the companysideration received from the defendant number 3 Ramdas.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial companyrt, the plaintiff respondent number 1 herein filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge.
The suit was companytested by the defendants including defendant No.3 Ramdas the appellant herein .
In the said suit the plaintiff Sitabai claimed to be a companysharer to the extent of half share in the said suit property for the reason that the plaintiff Sitabai and the defendant No.1 Sudam are the only legal heirs of deceased Sukha.
It was also submitted that it being an admitted position that the appellant herein had purchased the entire land bearing Gat No.
19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli in favour of the defendant No.
The trial companyrt after going through the evidence on record held that the aforesaid four properties were the self acquired properties of Sukha.
We have companysidered the aforesaid companytentions in the light of the relevant records.
A decree was passed by the trial companyrt holding that the plaintiff is entitled for shares of the suit property and that the defendant No.1 is entitled for shares in the suit property.
1 is the exclusive owner of the aforesaid land.
Therefore, the plaintiff Sitabai prayed for a decree for partition and for recovery of possession.
3 Ramdas further stated that he had purchased the aforesaid land for valuable companysideration and the plaintiff Sitabai was aware of this transaction.
1 Sudam owned and possessed half undivided share each in all the 4 properties.
It was further companytended that the plaintiff Sitabai is entitled for equal share i.e. shares in the suit property including Gat No.
Another submission for the companynsel appearing the appellants was that at least on the ground of equities the appellant is entitled to be declared as owner as being in possession of the property in question i.e. Gat No.
The said suit was filed by the plaintiff Sitabai respondent No.1 herein seeking for a decree of partition and for delivery of possession of her share in the suit property.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 13 issues were framed and all the parties led their evidence.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench while disposing of a second appeal filed by the appellant herein Mr. Ramdas who has been arrayed as defendant No.3 in the original suit.
The plaintiff Sitabai, therefore, is the sister of the defendant No.1 Sudam.
