On the basis of the pleadings raised, the following issues were raised in the suit Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit land as sole heir of deceased Mallari, on the date of the suit?
Whether plaintiff proves obstruction by the defendants?
1A, Whether defendant No.
Negative Negative On this basis the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
Whether the companyrt below were justified in giving finding on the validity or otherwise of the M.E. No.
Respondent Ratna Bai filed a suit in respect of the land bearing R.S. No.
On a second appeal, the High Court raised the following questions for companysideration Whether the companyrt below were justified in placing the burden on the appellate plaintiff to prove that numbernotice was served on the deceased defendant before certifying the M.E. No.
1 proves that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as pleaded in para 6 of the written statement?
13727.
Is plaintiff entitled to the injunction sought?
1 has been held to be in possession of the suit land on the date of suit for the reasons mentioned in the answer to issue No.
Affirmative.
Whether defendant proves that the plaintiff was legally divorced by deceased Mallari Suryavanshi?
Leave granted.
The trial companyrt recorded the findings as fol lows Negative 1A Does number arise as defendant No.
The matter was carried in appeal and the appellate companyrt companyfirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
The appellants who were defendants in the said suit pleaded that the land was in their possession throughout and the claim that the respondent has been in possession of the land is false that, even her status as wife of her deceased husband was denied.
1184/ 1A situated at B. Bagewadi village claiming that her husband died on 17.6.1976 that, she is the sole heir of her husband, that, her name had been entered in the relevant records in respect of the suit land that, even after the death of her husband, she had been cultivating the suit land and the appellants without having any right, title or interest over the suit land were obstructing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question that, she sought for permanent injunction against the appellants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the land in question.
