YESU SADHU NIMAGRE AND OTHERS Vs. KUNDALIKA BABAJI NIMARE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal discloses a somewhat regretable state of affairs, in that, both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have fallen in error in approaching the matter in dispute from the point of view of possession rather than title. In fact, it is fairly conceded that both the Courts below have approached the matter as if it was a suit for possession under Art. 64 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and not under Art. 65 thereof.

(2.) There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of immoveable property based on title, so that for such a case the period of limitation for the purposes of determining whether there is adverse possession by the defendants would commence from the date when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is necessary to set out the relevant facts, particularly as the question of adverse possession is not always a legal plea as such but is based on facts' which must be ascertained and proved.