The registration of a document is some evidence of its execution, and possession of a close relative, particularly when the owner is a minor and has no other male member to look after him, must be presumed not to be adverse.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment in R. A. 51 of 46-47 On the file of the Subordinate Judge, mysore, dismissing the appeal filed against O. S. 331 of 1944-45 on the file of the Second munsiff, Mysore who had decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for.

( 2 ) THE case of the plain tiff-respondent is that the suit properties belonged to Channi-gegowda. His widow Thimmi alias Helavi took plaintiff's father in adoption and executed a registered deed to evidence the same. Helvi was defendant's father's sister and this is how plaintiff and his mother came to be, after the death of his father, under the protection of defendant's father. Helvi died while they were living with defendant's father who began to look after the properties for and on behalf of the plaintiff. After the death of the father of the defendant, the suit was instituted for declaration of plaintiff's title and for possession of plaint-schedule properties. The defendant-appellant admits that Helvi is his father's sister, but denies that she ever lived with him. Though the adoption is denied in the statement, it is not contended before us that the adoption is not true. The defendant has denied that the properties belonged to Chennigegowda and that his father was looking after the properties on behalf of the plaintiff. According to him the plaintiff was never in possession of the properties within 12 years before suit and the suit is barred by adverse possession.

( 3 ) BOTH the courts below have come to the conclusion that the properties belonged to channigegowda and to plaintiff's father and that these belong now to plaintiff. They are of opinion that as defendant's father was in possession of the property on behalf of plaintiff, till his death the suit is well within time and that it is not barred by adverse possession. It will be noticed that the defendant docs not contend that the properties belonged to him. or to his father. His case is one of adverse possession. It is in evidence that plaintiff's grand father chennigegnwda purchased three of the suit properties under registered sale deeds, Khata of most of them stood in the khata of his wife after his death and none of these were in the khata of defendant's father till the time of the introduction of record of rights. Defendant's father did not issue a reply claiming the properties as his when plaintiff's mother issued a notice claiming them. From these and other circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge has agreed with the learned Munsiff in his finding that the properties belonged to plaintiff's grand-father.

( 4 ) AS regards the question whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the properties within 12 years before suit or whether the suit is barred by adverse possession, it was rightly held by the two courts below that the father of the defendant was in possession of the property on behalf of the plaintiff and that he was looking after the management of the properties. As admitted by the defendant in his statement, Thimmi alias Helvi was defendant's father's sister. It is true that he has denied that Helvi ever lived with her brother Venkatagowda after her husband's death. But chikkadasappa 8th witness for the defendant admits that Helvi lived in Venketegowda's house. Doddavenka-tiah DW-9 admits much more than this. He says that Helvi was wife of channigegowda and that after his death, she began to live with defendant's father venkategowda. Plaintiff's father whose marriage took place in Veokategowda's house lived in that house till his death. It is therefore very clear that Helvi who came to her brother's house after her husband's death must have taken plaintiff's father in adoption and celebrated his marriage in that house. Plaintiff's father and mother lived under the protection of defendant's father venkategowda till plaintiffs father died, leaving the plaintiff who was a