SAMPAT RAGHO TAYADE Vs. SURAJMAL KALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 2 to a suit for possession of S. No. 24 of mauza Mhasla Khurd, taluq Chikhli, district Buldana.

(2.) THE aforesaid field admittedly belonged to one Chhogamal who died in the year 1926. After his death his widow Smt. Ullahasbai came into possession of this Held. She died on 14-12-1938. According to the plaintiff Ullahasabai was in possession of this field right till her death. The plaintiff who claims that his father Kaluram was a brother of Chhogmal alleges in his plaint that the field was the self-acquired property of Chhogmal and that after the death of Ullahsabai he was entitled to succeed to it as the next reversioner. He therefore instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises on 2-8-1947. The plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that he learnt that after the death of Ullahasabai her sister Zumkabai took wrongful possession of the aforesaid field, that later she sold it to her son-in-law Jeoraj, who in his turn sold it to Rekchand Ratanlal Rekchand sold it to two persons Abdul Sattar and Sk. Umar and that these two persons sold it to the defendants 1 to 4 by a sals deed, dated 13-1-1948. He therefore sued them for obtaining possession of the field.

(3.) THE defendants raised a number of pleas of which mention need be made only of the plea of adverse possession. According to them, Ullahasabai and her successors-in-title have been in adverse pos-session of this field uninterruptedly, continuously and openly for over 12 years and that the plaintiff's suit is barred by time. They also alleged two facts, viz. that Ullahasabai adopted a son by name Pan-nalal with whom she had entered into a family arrangement by virtue of which the field in question was given to her absolutely and that Ullahasabai sold it to Motilal, the husband of Zumkabai. It may however be mentioned that the lower appellate Court has held that no adoption took place, that no family arrangement was entered into between Ullahasabai and Pannalal and that the alleged sale by Ullahasabai to Motilal has not been proved at all.