IMPORTANT POINT
Suit simpliciter for perpetual injunction is not maintainable where defendants have brought sufficient material creating doubt as to title of plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

The appellant/original plaintiff impugns judgment and decree dated 11.01.1995 passed by District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.111 of 1993, thereby upholding judgment and decree dated 15.04.1993 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 manged 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 dated 10.06.1960. On 19.04.1967, 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.

4. The Trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of parties and after evaluation of evidence concluded that plaintiff failed to prove her title and possession over suit property, so also, failed to prove any obstruction by defendants as alleged. Eventually, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal before learned District Judge, who concurrent with finding of Trial Court on all points and maintained the decree of dismissal of suit. It appears that cross objection was filed on behalf of defendants. However, same is not considered being barred by limitation.

5. Aggrieved plaintiff filed this second appeal. It was placed for admission before this Court on 02.02.1996 and has been admitted by passing following order:—

“Heard counsel.

There involves substantial question of law on both appreciation of evidence and interpretation of law, relating to Sec.4(1) of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. The findings recorded by the courts below are contrary to Supreme Court judgment reported in 1995 SCW 1422.

Admit.

Notice.

Shri Naik waives service for respondent no.1.”

6. Second appeal was then placed under the caption ‘final hearing’ before this Court on 24.02.2025. It was pointed out by learned advocate appearing for respondents that while admitting second appeal, specific substantial question of law is not framed. Therefore, learned advocate appearing for appellants sought accommodation to file specifically framed substantial questions of law. Accordingly, liberty was granted to him. He passed on a pursis and proposed three specifically framed substantial questions of law, which reads thus:

“1. Whether both the courts below ought to have considered that the alleged sale-deed dated 19/4/67 was acted upon and whether late Dilawar Baig or his son or late Sabdar Ali tried to get record their names in revenue record?

2. Whether in absence of production of