RAIMATI SAHUANI Vs. PANKAJA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that in spite of his repeated letters written to the respondents he did not receive any response. On 21/4/1995 we had given four weeks' time to the counsel for the respondents at his request. Today also, he has repeated the same and requested another chance but we decline to grant further adjournment.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant-plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for possession. Her case is found on the undisputed fact that her father Urddhaba is owner of 88 acres of the plaint property. She claims that the respondents are not concerned with the property in whatsoever manner but remained in possession. The respondents set up the plea of adoption. Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents is brother's son of Urddhaba. The trial court accepted the plea of adoption and dismissed the suit. In First Appeal 196 of 1977, by judgment and decree dated 3/12/1992 the learned Single Judge of the High court confirmed the decree. Hence, this appeal by special leave.