A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.)The second appeal was admitted on 13-1-1998 on the following substantial questions of law stated in memo of appeal as 7.3 and 7.4.
7.3 Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit by holding that even if there is no document of title in her favour, the respondent No. 1 has perfected her title by adverse possession, thereby completely contravening the test of doctrine of adverse possession

7.4 - Whether the Courts below were justified in granting decree of possession without determining the status of the appellant as to whether he was a licensee or a trespasser, in absence thereof no decree for mesne profit could be passed under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code

The second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-9-1997 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Wardha in RCA No. 161 of 1995 which was dismissed with costs. The said Regular Civil Appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 19-7-1995 passed in RCS No. 50 of 1993 by learned Civil Judge, JD, Pulgaon who was pleased to decree the suit.

(2.)The facts which appear briefly are as under:-- One Ukandrao Maraskolhe was occupant of the suit house consisting of two rooms bearing GP No. 482 situated at village Rohna, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. The house was admeasuring 65 x 18 feet and some portion of the plot was open. It is contended that said Ukandrao was in long possession of the suit property claiming ownership thereof. He died in the year 1968, leaving behind his widow Yamuna and his daughter Nanibai (original plaintiff) who had instituted the suit in the trial Court on the ground that her father was exclusive owner of the suit property. He used to pay house tax and electricity bill in respect of the house. After marriage of plaintiff Nanibai in the year 1975, she went to Seloo, but after death of her mother Yamunabai, the suit house was locked by her. In the month of July, 1984, plaintiff came to know that defendant Sonba Shamji took forcible possession of the suit house. According to plaintiff, when she locked the suit house, she had entrusted key to Harishchandra Wahake and requested him to look after the suit property.
(3.)The plaintiff came to know about forcible dispossession by defendant No. 1 Sonba. Defendant No. 1 told the plaintiff that he is ready to purchase it, but subsequently, he declined to purchase it and refused to give possession of suit house to the plaintiff by notice dated 1st January, 1985. The plaintiff gave reply to the notice on 21-1-1985 and demanded possession from defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 refused to hand over possession contending that suit house is owned by defendant No. 2 Shamrao Janglu Irpate and also contended that defendant No. 3 Ramdas Govindrao Irpate is real owner of suit house. Thus, defendant No. 1 Sonba disputed title and prior possession of plaintiff and refused to vacate the suit house.