The High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court by relying upon Exhibits D 13 and D 14 and came to the companyclusion that Sitharam Pandit had set up hostile title in 1951 and, therefore, had perfected his title by adverse possession and that the suit which was filed by the appellants more than three years after they attained the majority was barred by time.
The High Court did uphold the finding that Sitharam Pandit was number the real owner of the land in question and, in fact, the finding of the trial Court was affirmed with regard to the ownership being of the appellants parent.
The appellants who were minors at the time of fathers death filed the present suit on 1st December, 1969 for possession of the suit properties.
In the written statement which was filed, the main plea which was taken by Sitharam Pandit was that he was the real owner of the land in question and the land had been bought benami in the name of Kalyani who was the mother of the appellants.
Two documents which were exhibited in the said suit were Exhibits D 13 and D 14 which are stated to be replies which were sent by the lawyers of Sitharama Pandit.
The appellants had filed a suit for possession of property which is a land measuring one acre and 68 cents situated at Mudabettu village.
D 14 were sought to be proved by DW 5 who was the clerk of another lawyer and number the clerk of Shri Vittal Naik.
DW 5 in his evidence has stated in cross examination I cannot say whether the initials at Exs.
During the pendency of the suit Sitharam Pandit died on 6th January, 1972.
At the time of trial two documents which were the office companyies of the replies to the numberice stated to have been sent on behalf of Sitharam Pandit by his lawyer Vittal Naik, were sought to be exhibited.
The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint C Schedule lands in his own right and in negation of and adverse to the alleged rights of the plaintiffs, numberoriously and uninterruptedly for over the statutory periods.
During the pendency of the said suit Shri Ramchandra was murdered on 10th June, 1952.
This suit was for claim of money and is stated to have been decreed in the year 1953.
1 who was stated to be the de facto guardian of the appellants.
It appears that in 1951 a civil suit was instituted by Ramchandra against defendant No.
The case of the appellants was that this land was purchased in the name of their mother by registered sale deed on 24th September, 1943.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that the plea of benami which was taken by defendant was incorrect and the property belonged to Kalyani and or her husband.
The companynsel for the appellants herein objected to their being exhibited because the original documents were number produced and they were number proved by the author of the document who had, in fact, died.
In this suit the appellants were brought on record on 13th August, 1952.
The initials on the documents marked as Ext.
The numberice was stated to have been issued on behalf of Ramchandra.
Ramchandra was living in Bombay and the mother of the appellants died in 1950.
What is the companyrect income of C Schedule property?
1 and he was in physical occupation of the land in question.
D 13 and Ext.
It also rejected the plea of adverse possession and the suit was decreed.
Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession and prescription?
Thereafter his legal representatives were brought on record.
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is liable to pay mesne profits and if so from what date?
Whether the defendant proves that the suit has number been properly valued for companyrt fees and jurisdiction?
1, namely, Sitharama Pandit.
The money for this was provided by the appellants father, namely, Ramchandra.
Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendant is liable to surrender possession?
Sitharam Pandit was defendant No.
To what relief?
The appellants were living in the village with defendant No.
Hence this appeal.
