1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2001 Murlidhar s/o Kishan Gundawar Appellant V E R S U S Baliram s/o Gangaram Talne and others Respondent Shri. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant Shri. A.G. Dalal, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondents No. 5A to 5D, 5F, 6A to 6D CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th July, 2010 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. In view of the compromise that was recorded way back in the year 1984 between the original appellant (original plaintiff) and the respondents No. 1 to 4 (original defendants No. 1 to 4) in Appeal No. 135 of 1984, the suit stood decreed in favour of the appellant (original plaintiff) as against the respondents No. 1 to 4 (original defendants No. 1 to 4) to the extent of their share in the suit property. By consent of the parties, following order is passed : 3. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below stand set aside. 4. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was put in possession of suit land to the extent of 1 Acre 28 Gunthas on the date of agreement dated 27th February, 1974 ? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.5 agreed to sell his share of 18 Gunthas land to him on 25th January, 1975 ? If the answer to this issue is in the affirmative, 2 whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the said agreement ? (3) Whether the defendant No.5 and/or defendant No.6 prove that on 18th November, 1977, the defendants No. 1 to 5 were members of joint family and the defendant No.5 was Karta of the family ? (4) Whether the defendant No.5 and/or defendant No.6 prove that the defendant No.5 was entitled to alienate the suit property on 18th November, 1977 ? (5) Whether the defendant No.5 and/or defendant No.6 prove that the defendant No.5 sold entire suit property for legal necessity to defendant No.6 ? 5. The Advocates appearing for the parties, especially the Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 5 and 6 insisted that since the parties have already adduced their evidence in the trial Court, the learned Judge of the trial Court should be directed to record his findings to the above issues. The learned Advocate for the appellant has no objection to this proposal. 6. Since there are no findings on facts recorded in this case, I am remanding the case back to the trial Court. The learned Judge of the trial Court shall record findings on the issues recorded above on the basis of evidence that has already come on record. The order of temporary injunction running in favour of the appellant shall continue till the disposal of the suit. The learned Judge of the trial Court as far as possible shall dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. In view of disposal of Second Appeal No. 192 of 2001 in above terms, Civil Application No. 3655 of 2001 does not survive. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/sa/192/01 3