ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The admitted facts are that the lands in dispute belonged to Punjaba and on his demise, his widow Parwatabai had succeeded to his estate in 1941. Consequently, she became the owner of a limited estate. It is the appellant s case that Parwatabai had executed a registered gift deed in favour of her husband in 1941 and eversince they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands. Admittedly, the respondents are daughter of Parwatabai. It is their case that on the demise of their mother, they became the owners of the property and were in possession of the property till 1976 when they were dispossessed and as a consequence the suit was filed for possession based on title. Though it was specifically not pleaded on title, admittedly on fact situation suit was filed under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the "Act"). The trial Court negatived the respondents claim and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the respondents had on the demise of their mother in 1966 succeeded to the estate of their father. Therefore, they are entitled to the possession since