Judgment This Appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law raised by the appellant (original defendant) as follows:- (1) Whether the presumption as raised by entries in 7/12 extracts could be said to have been rebutted by Exh.149 to Exh.160 – the letters – said to be written by Surjabai? (2) Whether the Appellate Court wrongly held that letters Exh. 149 to 160 were not proved? (3) Was the Appellate Court justified in decreeing the suit for injunction when name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the 7/12 extracts? 2. The Second Appeal is initiated at the instance of defendant against whom decree has been passed by the first Appellate Court (learned 2nd Ad-hoc District Judge, Buldana) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 169/2004 on 8.3.2007. The trial Court had dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 297/1993 in Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Malkapur. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as Plaintiff and defendant. 3. Facts briefly stated are : Original plaintiff-Swarupchand was owner of agricultural land bearing S.No. 5/2 admeasuring 3 H 26R situated at Gadegaon, Tal, Malkapur Dist. Buldana. He was suffering from cerebral malfunction since childhood and the suit was filed through his next friend Bhagchand, who died pending the suit and his son Rikhabchand came on record as next friend of Swarupchand. Swarupchand also died during pendency of suit and was substituted by his legal heirs on record. Swarupchand had got the suit land as his share in partition since 1959. His bother's wife Surjabai w/o Shantilal cultivated suit land on his behalf till her death on 1.12.1993. Bhagchand, stepbrother of Swarupchand, started cultivating after death, but was obstructed by the defendant. Thus, suit was instituted for perpetual injunction. The defendant resisted the suit pleading that Swarupchand and Surjabai had leased the suit land to the defendant's father Rajaram Dawle and defendant and his father cultivated the suit land, claiming that they have established tenancy rights, and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. It also incidentally held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. The plaintiff challenged dismissal by means of RCA No.169/2004 in the District Court, Buldana. 4. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. It also incidentally held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. The plaintiff challenged dismissal by means of RCA No.169/2004 in the District Court, Buldana. Learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Buldana allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 8.3.2007 and decreed the suit restraining the defendant or anybody on behalf of the defendant from obstructing possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 6. I have heard submissions advanced at the Bar by learned counsel representing the defendant /appellants and the plaintiff/respondent, respectively. 7. The suit land belonged to Swarupchand who was not of sound mind, hence cultivated land through his next friend Surjabai (Brother's wife) till she died on 1.12.1993. After death of Surjabai, Bhagchand who is step brother of Swarupchand, started cultivating the suit land. On 5.12.1993 defendant had obstructed Bhagchand in his possession which led to institution of the regular civil suit to restrain the defendant from disturbing the possession. The defendant also admitted that suit land came to the share of Swarupchand in the partition in the year 1959, who was a lunatic; therefore, his property could not have let out without following relevant provisions of law, that too without consent of court in view of Section 47 of the Indian Lunacy Act as then was applicable. The first Appellate Court did consider the entire evidence of five witnesses on behalf of plaintiff and two witnesses examined for defendant. Mental ill-health of Swarupchand was not disputed, therefore, it was for the defendant to establish valid and legal right to occupy the land. Letters from Surjabai in her purported handwriting were not enough to substantiate the case of the defendant. Names of defendant and his father who were allegedly cultivating the suit land were not recorded in revenue record. Defendant could not establish any transaction of letting out of suit property from Surjabai. According to DW 2 Rajaram he had never seen Surjabai making writing in his presence. Defendant could not establish any letter as written by Surajbai. Letters Exh.149 to 160 were not duly proved. The plaintiff could establish factum of their possession. The defendant had no right over suit property and could not have obstructed actual physical possession thereof, without any valid justification. Upon appreciation of evidence, it was held that letters Exh. Defendant could not establish any letter as written by Surajbai. Letters Exh.149 to 160 were not duly proved. The plaintiff could establish factum of their possession. The defendant had no right over suit property and could not have obstructed actual physical possession thereof, without any valid justification. Upon appreciation of evidence, it was held that letters Exh. 149 to 160 were not duly proved as written by late Surjabai. Looking into facts and circumstances on record, assuming for the sake of argument that Surjabai could let out the land to anybody she had no valid authority from any court do so considering that the suit land belonged to a mentally ill Swarupchand who was not competent to enter into contract. There was no legal evidence of alleged lease transaction between Surjabai and defendant. Therefore, the first appellate court had correctly decided the First Appeal by decreeing the suit. No substantial question of law as pleaded and stated above, arose so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 8. In sequel to the discussion as above, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.