6 Now, turning towards, whether the application can proceed further, it is to be noted that the suit, that was filed by the present applicantsplaintiffs, was for recovery of possession. They were claiming to be the owners of the suit property and were contending that the defendants in collusion had recorded their names to the revenue record regarding ownership and possession. The possession was claimed from all the defendants. It had come on record that initially one Shahaji Ghugre, who appeared to be the father of plaintiff No.1, sold the suit land to one Motiram i.e. defendant No.1 on 26.06.1973 to the extent of 03 H 60 R. Prior to that there was a sale deed in favour of one Rangubai Khawte in respect of 9 acres on 22.08.1972. It is then stated that there was mistake in the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1, which was discovered after death of Shahaji and, therefore, a Correction Deed was also made on 07.04.1978. Thereafter, defendant No.1 is stated to have sold half of the property to defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 24.06.1983 and after death of Rangubai her son defendant No.2 became owner of half portion of the land, which was purchased by Rangubai. Then defendant No.2 stated to have sold those lands by two registered sale deeds dated 25.05.1995 to defendant No.6 i.e. the present respondent No.6 and defendant No.7 in the year 1997. Thereafter, it
