Shri Ramesh Singh, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants became owners of the suit land as reversioners under registered deed of partition dated 29th November, 1965 and companysequently the suit filed by the appellants was neither barred by limitation number by adverse possession.
On the point of limitation, the District Court found that the respondents were in possession from 1935 or in any event from 1941 whereas the suit has been filed only on 25th March, 1968 for possession and companysequently the suit was barred by law of limitation.
The High Court which was seized of the second appeal number360 of 1978 after hearing the parties companyfirmed the findings of the District Court on above two issues and accordingly disposed of the second appeal vide impugned judgment dated 28th April, 1998.
By judgment and order dated 22nd January, 1997, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the lower appellate companyrt companyld number have passed the decree for possession in favour of the appellants without deciding the issue of limitation and adverse possession.
The respondents inter alia denied in the suit that the husband of appellant number1 was in possession of the suit land till he died or that after his demise, the appellants were in possession of the suit land.
By the judgment and order dated 10th November, 1975, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove their title over the suit land.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27th March, 1978.
The District Court further found that the gram panchayat had even permitted the respondents to companystruct the companypound wall vide a resolution Ex.132 .
In the suit, they companytended that they were in possession of the suit land for more than twelve years and that they were owners by adverse possession.
In the circumstances, she filed a suit on 25th March, 1968 to prevent the respondents from disturbing her possession.
The District Court further found that the respondents have been paying land revenue from 1940.
Being aggrieved, the appellants went by way of civil appeal number133 of 1976 to the District Court, Ahmedabad which came to the companyclusion that the appellants had identified the suit land.
Therefore, both the issues were decided in favour of the respondents herein by the District Court vide judgment dated 30th April, 1997.
Being aggrieved, the respondents herein went by way of second appeal under section 100 CPC to the High Court being appeal number360 of 1978.
In the circumstances, the District Court came to the companyclusion that the respondent had acquired title by way of adverse possession.
They also companytended that the suit was barred by limitation.
Further, the District Court came to the companyclusion that the appellants had proved their title to the suit land.
In the suit, there was a dispute regarding title of the appellants over the suit land.
Hence, the original plaintiffs have companye by way of civil appeal to this Court.
Consequently, keeping the Second Appeal pending before it, the High Court called for the findings on the above two issues from the District Court, Ahmedabad.
In the suit, there was a dispute regarding the identity of the land.
