ANNU BAJABA JAGADALE Vs. DADU TUKARAM JAGADALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from the Assistant Judge of Satara. The plaintiff, as a son adopted by one Dhondai to her deceased husband, claims to recover possession of the suit property on the ground that alienations by the widow were not for legal necessity. The husband died in 1900, and the plaintiff was adopted in 1934. The alienations took place between 1901 and 1904. There was also an alienation in 1908 in favour of defendant No.1, but he has not appealed and I am only concerned with two alienations, one in 1901 and the other in 1904. The trial Judge raised two issues, which are relevant for the present purpose. The first is issue No.1: Does the plaintiff prove that he has been duly and validly adopted by Dhondai? The other is issue No.3: Is the suit barred by time?

(2.) THE only allegation relating to limitation in the written statement was that the plaintiff and his predecessors had not been in possession within twelve years from the date of the suit and hence the plaintiff's suit was out of time.

(3.) ON the issue of limitation the learned trial Judge held that so far as survey No.165 was concerned, the defendants had been in possession since 1917, and the suit was out of time. He does not say why the plaintiff's title, which only accrued in 1934, should be barred.