MOST ETWARIYA Vs. SHANKAR DUSADH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bishwanath Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff (now deceased through her L.R.) against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1988 passed by Sub Judge I, Aurangabad in T.A.No. 44/76 upholding the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiff has filed the suit mainly for declaring her as Raiyat of the suit land and for declaration that the defendant has acquired no right, title or interest on the basis of auction sale which is illegal and void, and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in dispute had been recorded in equal shares in the names of Laxman Dushadh and Lachhu Dushadh who were in possession as separate members of the family. The plaintiff has claimed to have inherited the 8 annas share therein as deceased son's wife of Lachhu Dushadh. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, claiming to have purchased the suit land through auction sale in Execution Case No. 152/58 on 23.11.61 and to have obtained delivery of possession on the same date i.e. 23.11.61, dispossessed her on 25.11.61 from the suit land on the strength of the delivery of possession. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she is an illiterate village woman and the defendant, by perpetrating fraud, succeeded in dispossessing her on the pretext that all her properties had been auction sold. However, after some years the plaintiff could learn that her lands had not been sold as alleged by the defendant and the defendant had come in wrongful possession of her lands. Further, the plaintiff has also stated that she belonged to a backward class and the court had no jurisdiction to sell her land in execution and any such sale in execution case was void and illegal. It has also been alleged that the auction sale is illegal in for want of notice and also under the provisions of Money Lenders Act as well as due to misdescription of the sold land.