KRISHNADIXIT BALDIXIT Vs. BALDIXIT WAMANDIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal which was determined by the District Judge of Bijapur on an assumed condition of facts. The assumed facts were these: That the land in suit belonged to defendant No 2 s family and that the members or a member of the plaintiff s family was an agent leasing the land out and taking rents and accounting for them to defendant No 2 s family. It was further assumed that in the year 1887 this agent on behalf of defendant No. 2 s family leased the land by a registered lease for eighteen years to one Ishvara; that Ishvara took possession under this lease and remained in possession until the term of the lease expired, or at least up to some time well within twelve years of the institution of this suit. Somewhere in 1893 or 1894, however, the agent and it his family asserted that they, and not defendant No. 2 s family, were the owners of the land and thenceforth they kept the rents received from the tenant Ishvara and never accounted for them to defendant No. 2.

(2.) On these facts it was contended that however unimpeachable the title of defendant No. 2 s family, that title had been lost by adverse possession beginning in 1893-94 with the assertion that I have mentioned.

(3.) Both the lower Courts found in the plaintiffs favour, that is, that the title by adverse possession had been made out. We think differently, and I will give as briefly as I can the reasons which have led me to this conclusion.