In a recent development, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad rejected a second appeal in a heated family land disagreement. The case was about who owned a piece of land and an agreement that was never fully followed. Let's break down this complex story.
The case involved Sanjay, Subhash, and Chandrabhagabai Thorat, who were appealing against Kashinath and others from the Thorat family. The disagreement was over a piece of land in Janephal, Aurangabad.
The land in question was originally given to Smt. Anjanabai in a 1983 division. She allowed her son Damodhar and his family to farm it. However, things got complicated when Damodhar's family got themselves listed as the owners, leading Anjanabai to go to court to declare her ownership and get the land back.
"The subject matter is land Gut No.89 measuring 6 Acre 10 R. which was allotted to the plaintiff in a partition which took place in 1983."
In 1996, an agreement was made where the defendants agreed to pay Anjanabai Rs. 2,000 every year, and they would become landowners after her death. But this agreement was not followed, leading to more legal battles.
"It was agreed that defendants in that suit would pay Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiff and then defendants would become owner of the land after demise of plaintiff."
Anjanabai had to file multiple cases because the terms of the agreement were not met. Her attempts to secure her rights through court were ongoing, even after her initial case was dismissed for not being pursued.
"She was required to file Regular Civil Suit No.268 of 2003 again for declaration and possession."
Judge Shailesh P. Brahme decided that Anjanabai had the right to claim ownership despite the agreement. The court found that the defendants did not follow the terms, and the case was not too late to be heard.
"I am of the considered view that plaintiff has not challenged the compromise decree."
The court dismissed the appeal, siding with Anjanabai’s heirs and reinforcing that the agreement's non-compliance gave rise to a fresh reason to take legal action.
"Second appeal is dismissed."
