BHAIYYA Vs. WACHHALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dtd. 5/11/2001, the appeal has been admitted on substantial questions of law mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 and 4 in the appeal memo, which read thus :

(2.) The first substantial question of law so formulated indicates that the respondent-plaintiff has shown undue haste to get her name mutated in the revenue record, which suggest that she had knowledge of Will executed by her father Govindrao Sadu Bawankar, which fact having been suppressed by the respondent - plaintiff, the relief of injunction could not have been granted because she did not come clean before the trial Court.

(3.) Having gone through the record, there appears evidence on the point that respondent - plaintiff had knowledge of execution of Will prior to she lodging the suit. The respondent, however, led evidence through power of attorney to which the appellants object. The respondent had lodged a suit not only for permanent injunction but for declaration of ownership as well. She sought declaration that she is absolute owner of suit field bearing Survey No. 53/1 admeasuring 2.85 H situated at Mouza Kotewada, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur.