ORDER

This appeal by special arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh made on October 12, 1985 in Second Appeal No. 309/80.

2. The admitted facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession of agricultural lands covered under the schedule of the plaint. The respondent pleaded adverse possession. The trial Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession for having remained in possession for more than 12 years. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree on the ground that the respondent had come into possession under a power of attorney and, therefore, he remained to be in possession as an agent on behalf of the principal. The appellant claimed title through one of the principals who had given power of attorney under Ex. P-3. Respondent admitted that he had come into possession thereunder and, therefore, he cannot plead adverse possession against the appellant. In second appeal, the learned single Judge considered the controversy in relation to the documentary evidence and held thus :

"The word Shikmi used in the application has, t