AMINABEE Vs. SHRIRAJ AHMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original plaintiff impugns judgment and decree dtd. 11/1/1995 passed by District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.111 of 1993, thereby upholding judgment and decree dtd. 15/4/1993 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed in Regular Civil Suit No.462 of 1988, thereby dismissing suit of plaintiff/appellant seeking decree of perpetual injunction against respondents/defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.462 of 1988 contending that she inherited suit property from her mother. She has constructed farmhouse and residing along with her children. She managed agricultural operation by hiring labour. Defendant No.1 is influential person and local MLA. He managed to get mutation in cultivation column of suit land behind her back. In the year 1987, she came to know about illegal mutation; hence, issued notice to defendant No.1 to which he failed to reply. On 17/10/1988, defendants obstructed her possession on the basis of illegal entry in mutation record. Therefore, suit is filed seeking decree of perpetual injunction.

(3.) The defendants refuted plaintiff's claim contending that Hasmatbee, who is mother of plaintiff was the original owner. She agreed to sell suit property to defendant No.1 vide agreement to sell dtd. 10/6/1960. On 19/4/1967, she executed sale deed in favour of Dilawar Baig for or on behalf of Safadar Ali. Dilawar Baig is nephew of Safadar Ali. Hence, Safadar Ali brought him to Beed along with his parents for taking care of land. According to defendants, Safadar Ali purchased the said land in the name of Dilawar Baig as benami purchaser. Accordingly, his name was recorded in mutation. After death of Dilawar Baig, his legal heirs has instituted Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 1971 against defendant No.1 for declaration of title. The said suit was dismissed. Similarly, one Husratbee and others had also raised claim over suit property in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1981, which came to be dismissed on 24/11/1986. According to defendant, alternatively, he perfected title by way of adverse possession.