DHONDYABAI Vs. KEDA DEVMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th July 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalwan, Dist. Nasik in Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1999 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.167 of 2009 by judgment and decree dated 3rd April 2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Nasik, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff.

(2.) In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the suit filed by the Appellants, the Trial Court held in answering the issue framed by him that the suit property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiff and she is owner thereof, the mutation entry in the name of Defendants is illegal. The suit filed by her was not within limitation and consequently the Appellants were not entitled to the relief of declaration and possession claimed by them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Appellants emphasized that the issue No.8 framed by the Trial Court as to whether Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 become owner of the suit property by adverse possession, has been answered against the Defendants which means that the Defendants failed to prove their plea of adverse possession. Still the Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation which is contrary to the law.