JUDGMENT - DESAI A.A., J.:---These appeals and cross-objection arose out of the judgment dated 25-8-1977 by which claim for recovery of possession has been decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed.

2. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (original plaintiffs) claimed that Surveys Nos. 30 and 31 of Mouza Beed being their ancestral property, they are the owners. According to them, Adinath Limbaji Navale (appellant No. 1) filed Civil Suit No. 98/69 against the respondent No. 4 for relief of injunction simpliciter. This suit subsequently on 26-3-1971 was withdrawn. In the meanwhile, i.e. in the third week of June 1970, the appellants original defendants had dispossessed them of the suit fields. They, therefore, on 11-5-1973 filed a civil suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit.

Their claim for possession was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 (appellants) contending that the respondent No. 4 Abdul Jabarkhan for self and on behalf of the respondent No. 5 executed in November 1949 an agreement of sale (Exh. 107) for the entire suit land in favour of deceased Limbaji Navale (appellants Nos. 1 to 7 are his legal heirs) and appellant No. 8 Gyandev Navale for a total consideration of Rs. 3,500/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed after grant of permission to sell by the Collector. In pursuance of the agreement, they had paid earnest money. On 26-6-1951 vide Exh. 93, they made further payment as a party consideration. They were then placed in possession of the suit land. Their possession over the suit land was protected in view of the provisions laid down under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'). They alternatively claimed that being continuously and adversely holding the possession for a period of more than 12 years i.e. right from 1951, the title has perfeted in them. Consequently, the plaintiffs had lost the title and as such, the civil action for recovery of possession could not be maintainable at their instance.

On 22-8-1970 the appellants vide Exh. 118 sold part of the suit land in favour of respondent No. 2 Society (original defendant No. 10). Similarly, vide Exh. 120 dated 28-3-1973 they had sold another piece of the suit land in favour of the respondent No. 2 Society (original defendant No. 9). These respondents set up a plea that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and as such, they could not be deprived of the possession.

3. The learned trial Judge framed necessary issues which are enumerated in para 18 of the impugned judgment. Taking into consideration evidence as led, the learned Judge has held that the plaintiff No. 2 in part performance of the contract placed late Limbaji and the defendant No. 8 in possession of the suit land. However, the plaintiff No. 2 has no right to execute the agreement on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1. The learned Judge has further held that the defendants are not entitled to the protection under section 53-A of the Act. He rejected the plea of adverse possession, holding that the possession of the defendants was permissive. By the impugned decree, the learned trial Judge directed the defendants to put the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in possession of the suit land.

The claim for mesne profit was, however, not considered.

4. Appellant-original defendants Nos. 1 to 8 challenged the decree by First Appeal No. 748/77, whereas the original defendants Nos. 9 and 10 filed First Appeal No. 618/79.

Plaintiff No. 3 Fatma Begum (respondent No. 5) did not get relief of possession though she jointly claimed with other plaintiffs. She has, therefore, presented First Appeal No. 257/79.

Original plaintiffs filed cross-objection in First appeal No. 748/77 claiming the relief of mesne profit.

All these appeals and cross-objection since arose out of the common judgment, are heard together and being decided by this judgment.

5. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document