TARABAI RAMRAO PATANKAR Vs. DATTARAM GOVINDBHAI GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main facts in this appeal are common to S. A. 683 of 1922 and need not be wet out again The heirs of Vinayak filed the suit to recover possession of the other half of the Vatan lands. After the final decree in the suit of 1896 was passed in April 1912, Vinayak obtained possession of his half share, in July 1013. In August 1915, Tarabai, in execution of her decree against Antaji, dispossessed the tenants of Vinayak as well, Jankibai, widow of Vinayak's uncle, sought to recover possession, but her application was rejected in 1916. After her death her grand- daughter filed this suit against Tarabai making Vinayak's grandson and nephew party defendants,

(2.) The trial Judge hold that the validity of the mortgage ceased at the death of Htinmaiitrao, and Parchure who was then in possession became a trespasser, But the plaintiff did not claim through Parchure and until July 1.913 neither they nor their predecessors had any possession at all. From July 1913 they had only symbolical possession. As Tarabai sued Parchure for possession and was successful, plaintiff's right to possession also ceased. Consequently the suit was dismissed. The appellate Judge agreed with this decision except that he found that the Agashes obtained possession in 1913.

(3.) In appeal before us it was argued that the Agashes had acquired a title by adverse possession to a moiety in the suit lands Now Antaji Parchure was in possession aa sole mortgagee till it was declared in the suit of 1896 that the assignment of Datta-ram's share in the mortgage was void, and it was further held that the mortgage had been paid off. If Antaji could have been considered as holding adversely to the next heir of Han-mantrao while holding possession as mortgagee any suggestion of that sort is put an end to (1) by the finding that the mortgage was paid off so that the owners of the equity of redemption became entitled to possession under their purchases. (2) by the decision in Tarabai's suit against Antaji.