ANJANABAI RAJARAM GORE Vs. MANJULABAI BABAN GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the original defendant to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit land. The decree also directs payment of mesne profits to the plaintiff. The suit is filed for possession on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is occupying the same unauthorizedly. The second appeal is admitted vide order dtd. 22/4/1994 on the question of law framed in ground no.10, which reads as under:

(2.) The suit property is a landed property originally owned by one Baban Gaikwad, i.e. husband of the respondent (plaintiff). Baban Gaikwad died issueless on 13/1/1971, and all his properties, including the suit property, devolved upon the plaintiff. At the relevant time, the plaintiff was a minor aged 17 years. After the death of Baban, the plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue record. Since the plaintiff was a minor, the properties were looked after by the plaintiff's father as her guardian. The appellant (defendant) is the real sister of the plaintiff. The defendant got her name recorded in the 7/12 extract by a Mutation Entry No.49 dtd. 7/12/1971. The plaintiff's father expired in 1982, and thereafter, the plaintiff started managing all her properties, including the suit property.

(3.) On 26/3/1984, the plaintiff learnt for the first time of the revenue record in the name of the respondent. Hence, she applied to delete the respondent's name and prayed to enter her name in the revenue record. It is the plaintiff's contention that on 26/3/1984, she learnt about the Mutation Entry No.49. Hence, on 12/6/1984, the plaintiff filed an application for the correction of the mutation entry. After the necessary inquiry, the defendant's name was deleted vide order dtd. 12/10/1984, and the plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue record by Mutation Entry No.182. However, the defendant was in possession of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession on 29/6/1987. DEFENDANT'S CASE: