This document is a court judgment from the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi at Barshi, India. It details a lawsuit filed by Trimbak Aagatrao against the Grampanchayat Khandvi and several individuals. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land and sought an order directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and an injunction preventing obstruction of his possession. The court examined documents establishing the plaintiff's title and found in his favor, directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and restraining the other defendants from obstructing his possession. Costs were not awarded to either party to prevent further conflict.

1. 1 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
Received on :- 05-11-2004
Registered on :- 17-11-2004
Decided on :- 17/10/2011
Duration :- Y M D
IN THE COURT OF JT. CIVIL JUDGE, J.D. BARSHI AT
BARSHI
(Presided over by Sk. Akbar Sk. Jafar)
R.C.S.No. 332/1998
Exh. No._________
Trimbak Aagatrao @ Babui Gavhane, }
Age- 50 yrs, Occu – Agriculture, }
R/o. Khandvi, Tal. Barshi, Dist.Solapur }Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Grampanchayat Khandvi, }
Barshi. Tal.Barshi, Dist. Solapur. }
2. Shahaji Krushna Shelke, }
Age- 18 years, Occu-Agriculture, }
3. Vishnu Krushna Shelke, }
Age- 45 years, Occu-Agriculture, }
4. Gajendra Nivrutii Shelke, }
Age- 55 years, Occu-Agriculture, }
All R/o. Khandvi, Tal. Barshi, Dist.Solapur }
5. Appa Shamrao Shelke, }
Age- 50 years, Occu-Agriculture, }
R/o. Alipur road, Barshi, Dist.Solapur }Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim:- Suit for mandatory and perpetual
injunction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
Shri. P. D. Ubale - Advocate for plaintiff.
Shri. R.U.Vaidya - Advocate for defendants.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 17/10/2011)
1. It is suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction.
Plaintiff come up with the case that he is owner and in possession of
the suit property. It is purchased by his ancestors from ancestors of
defendant No. 2 to 5. The name of his ancestor and later on his name
is recorded into revenue record and was forthcoming in the record till
1980 but of Suddenly the defendant No. 1 removed name of plaintiff
without giving him opportunity to represent his side. Taking undue
benefit of this fact the defendant No. 2 to 5 started obstruction in his
possession, therefore, he constrained to file the instant suit for
mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to mute the name of
plaintiff in to revenue record in respect of suit property as well as
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 to 5 from
causing obstruction in his possession over suit property.
2. The defendant No. 1 remained absent though
served with summons, but defendant No. 4 appeared and filed his
written statement at exhibit 19 which is adopted by other defendants
vide pursis at exhibit 20. The defendant No. 2 to 5 denied the title of

3. 3 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
plaintiff over the suit property contending that they are the owner of
suit property being successor of original owner. According to them,
the plaintiff is in permissive possession of suit property. The name of
father of plaintiff is rightly deleted from the revenue record and
prayed for dismissal of suit.
3. Considering the rival contention of parties my
learned predecessor framed the issues at exhibit 24 and dismissed
the suit having found failure on the part of plaintiff to prove title
though his possession over the suit property is found proved. Having
displeased with judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal bearing
Regular Civil Appeal No. 239/05. During the appeal the plaintiff
submitted document of title written in moddy script to prove his
title. Considering the filing of document of title, the Hon'ble District
Court allowed the appeal setting aside judgment passed by my learned
predecessor, and remanded back for afresh trial on the basis of
additional document. The parties to the appeal are directed to appear
before this Court on 30th June 2011.
4. In compliance of order of Hon'ble District Court.
Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 appeared through counsel. The
defendant No. 2 to 5 failed to appear on the given date, hence, matter

4. 4 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
proceeded ex-parte against them. As per the directions of Hon'ble
District Court, the plaintiff filed a document of moddy script with
translation and adduce the evidence of translator. The defendant No.
1 did not adduce evidence. Consequently, the matter proceeded
without his evidence.
5. Considering evidence on record and the argument
advanced by the rival counsel I re-casted the issues and recorded my
findings thereon for the reasons given thereunder.
Issues Findings
1. Does the plaintiff prove that he is legally in
possession of suit property ?
Affirmative.
2. Does the plaintiff prove that defendant No. 1
is avoiding to mute his name to the record of suit
property maintained by it's office ?
Affirmative.
3. Does the plaintiff prove obstruction at the
hands of defendant No. 2 to 5 ?
Affirmative.
4. Is the plaintiff entitled for relief sought ? Affirmative.
5. What order and decree ? Suit is
decreed .
R E A S O N S
As to Issue No. 1 : -

5. 5 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
6. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of suit
property. It was the contention of defendant No. 2 to 5 that he is in
permissive possession but they failed to prove their plea, consequently
my learned predecessor hold that the defendants failed to establish
their plea of permissive possession framing specific issues prior to
remand. The defendant did not raise objection to the finding my
learned predecessor in appeal. Thus, finding to that effect become
final, and it is establish that the plaintiff is in possession of suit
property. So far as the legality of their possession is concerned,
plaintiff is relying on sale deed which is filed under the exhibit 59
and the translation at exhibit 57.
7. Upon going through the translation, it reveals that
the ancestor of defendant No. 2 to 5 Rama Shailke and the ancestor
of plaintiff Yashwant Gavhane had purchased property jointly from
Veerchang Hanumant Ghavane on 21/12/1908. Thus, they are owner
of half share of the property purchased by them. The translation is
duly proved in the evidence of translator who also filed his affidavit at
exhibit 56 in support of translation. The counsel of defendant No. 1
cross examined this witness but did not brough anything from the
mouth of witness so as to discard his testimony. Thus, the
translation is proved by witnesses as required by law. The suit
property is half portion belongs to Yashwant Ghavane. The title of

6. 6 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
plaintiff to the suit is found established. Resultantly, his possession
over the suit property is legal. Consequently, I answer issue No. 1 in
affirmative.
As to Issue No. 3 : -
8. So far as the obstruction of the possession is
concerned, the denial of title of plaintiff at the hands of defendant
No. 2 to 5 itself denotes that they are having hostile intention to the
possession of plaintiff. Moreover, their absence after the remand and
omission to oblige of direction of Hon'ble District Court denotes that
the defendant No. 2 to 5 are causing obstruction to the plaintiff.
Consequently I answer issue No. 3 in affirmative.
As to Issue No. 2 : -
9. Plaintiff is relying on revenue record which
discloses that the name of Yeshwant Gandhi was appearing in the
revenue record but later on it was came to be omitted. Counsel of
defendant No. 1 is unable to satisfy the reason of omission of name of
Yeshwant Ghavane. Application filed by plaintiff to various authorities
discloses that they have avoided to mute the name of plaintiff on the
record of Grampanchayat. Here it is argued by the counsel of
defendant No. 1 that moddy language is not official language nor it

7. 7 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
is known to it's employees. It was burden on the plaintiff to prove his
title to submit document with translation, he did not produce the
same before the Grampanchayat authority, therefore, Grampanchayat
was unbale to mute name of plaintiff to revenue record. Now it is
submitted by the counsel of defendant No. 1 that if this Court issue
direction, they are ready to abide the same. This reluctant approach
and suggestions to the translator and denying of genuineness of
translation of document discloses that defendant No. 1 is avoiding to
mute name of plaintiff on the revenue record. Hence I answer issue
No. 2 in affirmative.
As to Issue No. 4 : -
10. In consequent to my findings to the issue No. 1 to
3, it is established that the plaintiff is legally in possession of suit
property having obstruction at the hands of defendants No. 2 to 5,
and defendant No. 1 is avoiding to mute the name of plaintiff in the
revenue record. Resultantly, the suit is deserves to be decreed. Hence,
I answer issue No. 4 in affirmative.
11. So far as the cost of suit is concerned, the parties
are neighborers and local authority of village, saddling the costs on
defeating party would raise enmity between the parties and would

8. 8 R.C.S . .No. 332/1998(J)
cause multiplication of the litigation which is not at all aim of justice
delivery system. Thus, it will be just and property to call upon to bear
their own costs. In the result, I pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed.
2. The defendant No. 1 is hereby directed to
mute the name of plaintiff into record of suit
property maintained by it.
3. The defendants No. 2 to 5 are
hereby restrained from causing
obstruction in possession of plaintiff
over the suit property.
4. Parties to bear their own cost.
5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Dt. 17/10/2011 ( Sk. Akbar Sk. Jafar )
Barshi. Jt.Civil Judge J.D., Barshi.