RAMKRISHNA RAJARAM RAUT Vs. NARAYAN LIMBAJI RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the appeal was admitted in 1989, no substantial question of law was formulated. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the record following substantial question would arise for my consideration - (1) Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation ?

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit. He said that he is owner and possessor of the suit land (Agricultural land situated at village Kanadkhed). He said that the suit land was his ancestral property and during his father's life time his father alienated it in favour of the appellant's father in the year 1966, without having legal necessity. He said further that though property was sold in 1966, his father remained in possession till his death and thereafter he cultivated the same till 1980. He said in the month of May, 1980, appellants who are brothers inter-se dispossessed him forcibly. So, he brought this suit in the year 1985 for declaration that the he was owner of the land and that the alienation made by his father in 1966 in favour of the appellant's father was not binding upon him and for possession.

(3.) The Trial Court initially held that the respondent did not prove that sale effected by his father was not binding on him. The Trial Court also held that the respondent could not prove his possession till 1980. In other words, the Trial Court held that in 1966 possession of the suit land was delivered to the appellant's father and since then father of the appellants and appellants are in possession. In view of these two findings the Trial Court dismissed the suit.