ORDER

The Appellants had filed a suit for possession of property which is a land measuring one acre and 68 cents situated at Mudabettu village.

2. The case of the Appellants was that this land was purchased in the name of their mother by registered sale deed on 24th September, 1943. The money for this was provided by the Appellants father, namely, Ramchandra. Ramchandra was living in Bombay and the mother of the Appellants died in 1950. The Appellants were living in the village with Defendant No. 1 who was stated to be the de facto guardian of the Appellants.

3. It appears that in 1951 a civil suit was instituted by Ramchandra against Defendant No. 1, namely, Sitharama Pandit. During the pendency of the said suit Shri Ramchandra was murdered on 10th June, 1952. In this suit the Appellants were brought on record on 13th August, 1952. This suit was for claim of money and is stated to have been decreed in the year 1953. Two documents which were exhibited in the said suit were Exhibits D-13 and D-14 which are stated to be replies which were sent by the lawyers of Sitharama Pandit. The notice was stated to have been issued on behalf of Ramchandra.

4. The Appellants who were minors at the time of father s death filed the present suit on 1st, December, 1969 for possession of the suit properties. Sitharama Pandit was Defendant No. 1 and he was in physical occupation of the land in question. In the written statement which was filed, the main plea which was taken by Sitharama Pandit was that he was the real owner of the land in question and the land had been bought benami in the name of Kalyani who was the mother of the Appellants.

5. In the written statement, it was also pleaded by Defendant No. 1 that "without prejudice to any of the contentions made above, the plaintiffs claims to possession and delivery of the plaint properties, are barred by limitation, adverse possession and prescription. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint C Schedule lands in his own right and in negation of and adverse to the alleged rights of the plaintiffs, notoriously and uninterruptedly for over the statutory periods. "On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the Defendant proves that property purchased by Kalyani Bai under registered sale dated 24.12.1943 is benami for the defendant and that he is the true owner of the property?

2. Whether the Defendant proves that he has effected improvement in C Schedule property and if so, whether he is entitled to the value thereof?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is in possession of B Schedule moveables and if so whether the defendant is liable to deliver the same to the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the Defendant proves that the plaintiffs have acquiesced by their conduct the title of the Defendant to the plaint property?

5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the purchase of the muli right by the Defendant under the registered sale deed dated 29.11.1956 is from out of the income belonging to the plaintiffs in the hands of the Defendants?

6. Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendant was in management of the plaint property in his fiduciary capacity?

7. Whether the plaintiff prove that the Defendant is liable to render accounts to the plaintiffs and if so from which period?

8. What is the correct income of C Schedule property?

9. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants is liable to surrender possession?

10. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is liable to pay mesne profits and if so from what date?

11. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession and prescription?

12. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit has not been properly valued for court fees and j