SAU. KAMALBAI VISHWANATHRAO BHOPLE Vs. ULKA DIGAMBAR MADHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

(2.) This petition filed under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Beed, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 85/2018.

(3.) The petitioner/original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 84/2017 seeking declaration of ownership and declaration that gift deed dtd. 12/8/2016 and sale deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 6, dtd. 12/8/2016, are null and void and not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for compensation amount of the suit land. The petitioner contended in the suit that she has her cattle shed in the suit property, a well, servant quarter and godown and she has electric connection in her name and she is regularly paying the electricity charges. She further contended that she purchased 10 Acres land (which is part of the suit property) from one Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Rehman by registered sale deed dtd. 1/7/1977 for consideration of Rs.30,000.00. There are two wells and 28 mango trees in the said land and the petitioner has right to take water from Bindusara canal. In the year 2012, the Government acquired 10 Acres land for Beed-Ahmednagar-Parali railway. The said land was measured by the petitioner through competent authority in the year 2008. The defendant No. 4- Ulka Madhekar, who happens to be a wife of previous owner Shri. Digambar Madhekar, executed a registered documents of the disputed property in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6, which according to the petitioner is a fraud played on her. On the basis of said documents proceeding of preparing separate award has been initiated by defendants No. 1 yo 3 in the name of defendants No. 5 and 6. She claimed that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 6 and the gift deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 are not genuine documents and the defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant No. 5 and 6 and some revenue authorities are trying to swallow the suit land which belongs to the plaintiff. She claimed that there is no balance land of Madhekar family to the south side and east side of disputed property and therefore, Madhekar 's successor have no legal right to execute registered documents in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6. It is further claimed that during acquisition proceedings, the plaintiff came to know that 76R land shown as Pot Kharab in the disputed land, which is area of stream has been included in her 10 Acres land, therefore, the suit property shown in para 1 of the plaint was not acquired.