Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the original defendants, challenging the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2004 passed by learned District Judge-1, Biloli, District Nanded, dated 20.09.2009, whereby their appeal came to be dismissed. The said appeal was filed for challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dharmabad, District Nanded, in Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 2000, dated 13.07.2004.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred by their nomenclature before the trial Court.

3. Original plaintiff had come with a case, that one Gangaram Mahadu, resident of village Gurujawla, was the owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 12/1/B admeasuring 1 hectare 21 R. Plaintiff is his legal representative. After demise of Gangaram, she succeeded to the said property. She resides at village Bannali which is her matrimonial home. She is also having some landed property from her deceased husband's side. She was unable to cultivate the land which was left by her father. Therefore, she allowed her uncle Nangan Satwaji to cultivate the said land on crop share basis. She used to go to Gurujawla in the sowing season and used to bear half expenses for the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, etc. Thereafter, she used to go at the time of harvesting. She used to take half of the agricultural produce by deducting the incidental charges. According to her, till 1999, her relations with defendants were good. Defendant no. 01 is the son of Nangan and defendant no. 02 is her another uncle. It has been contended that the Government of Maharashtra had announced and paid compensation to the farmers on account of loss sustained by them due to heavy rains in 1999. The Block Development Officer, Biloli, had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,000/- in the name of plaintiff for the said land at Gurujawla. After the said cheque was issued, the relationship between defendants and the plaintiff became strained. They stopped giving half produce to the plaintiff and started claiming to be the owners on the basis of their cultivation. It is specifically stated that since 1999, possession of the defendants is illegal. Prior to that, it was permissive at the instance of plaintiff. She had thereafter applied to get her name mutated in the cultivation column. However, the defendants in collusion with revenue authority prepared a false and bogus panchanama in Grampanchayat Bannali. It was purported that plaintiff had executed a simple document i.e. on plain paper in favour of defendants. In fact, she has not conferred any right to them in any manner. Thereafter, plaintiff asked the defendants to hand over possession of the suit land to her in 2000 but defendants refused. They created encumbrance and tried to raise loan. Therefore, she filed the suit for possession and mesne profits.

4. Both the defendants have resisted claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. They have not disputed that the suit land was owned by Gangaram. It is stated, that father of defendant no. 01 Nangan and defendant no. 02 had purchased the suit land from Gangaram in 1965, for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. It is stated, that only formality of agreement to sell was completed and since then, they were cultivating the suit land as owner. It is stated, that plaintiff has no right over the suit land. The said agreement which was executed by Gangaram in their favour, was lost from the custody of defendant no. 01 due to floods in his village in 1983. The fact of execution of the said agreement was within the knowledge of plaintiff and, therefore, she recognized the said right in favour of defendants by executing another document i.e. agreement executed on 20.05.1991 in presence of panchas. She agreed to honour the agreement to sell which agreed by her deceased father. She thereafter did not execute the agreement and started raising questions. They have denied that their possession over suit land was permissi