This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

The subject matter of the suit is house property. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the said suit house from one Rukhamabai by registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955. Plaintiffs contend that the said house was in their possession until 1974. In the year 1974 the defendant who is real sister of the plaintiffs came to reside at village Tadali. She had no place to reside. She made a request to allow her family to reside therein. Plaintiffs acceded to the request and permitted the defendants to reside therein for a period of 5 to 6 years. After the period of 5 to 6 years defendants failed to vacate, hence the plaintiffs issued notice but the defendants refused to accept the notice. Plaintiffs therefore instituted a suit for possession.

3. Defendants resisted the suit. The defendants do not dispute that house property was belonging to Rukhamabai. They however dispute that plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from her for a sum of Rs.100/-. According to defendants Rukhamabai did not have any issue. It is the defendants who were therefore taking the care of Rukhamabai and she had therefore allowed them to reside there. Defendants have been residing there and have been paying the taxes. Suit house has been recorded in the name of husband of defendant no.1.

4. Learned Judge of the trial Court recorded the evidence. He found that the plaintiff had failed to prove their title inasmuch as the original sale deed was not produced by the plaintiffs on record.

5. Plaintiffs therefore preferred an appeal before the District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal also found that plaintiffs had failed to prove the title as original sale deed is not placed on record. The appeal was therefore dismissed hence this second appeal.

6. Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

The question of title of the appellant is substantial question of law.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. Plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit house from one Rukhamabai by a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955. Defendants in the Special Pleadings specifically contend that Rukhmabai was the owner and they have been living with Rukhamabai as she had no issue. They contend that they are occupying the suit house and have been paying the taxes etc.

8. From the pleadings one thing is certain that Rukhmabai was the original owner of the suit house. Trial Court seems to have held that the plaintiffs could not be said to be the owner since plaintiffs had failed to prove the sale deed in their favour as the original sale deed is not produced on record. He has discarded the photo copy Ex. 25. Plaintiffs had filed before the District Judge the original sale deed. Learned Judge had not passed any order on the application for production of the sale deed and says that he will deal with it at the appropriate stage. He strangely observed that though the sale deed is exhibited as Ex. 25, it does not make out if the same property is purchased which is described in the plaint by the plaintiffs. In this regard at this stage itself, it may be noted that the defendants do not say that the description of the property as given in the plaint is not in accordance with the sale deed or that the suit house which is described in the plaint was not the one owned by Rukhmabai. Therefore the learned Judge of the appellate Court has wrongly observed that the suit property and the one purchased by the plaintiffs are not the same properties.

9. Let us see if the sale deed could be said to be proved in the instant case. The plaintiffs tendered in the civil suit the photo copy of the sale deed. P. W. 1 Doma, the plaintiff had proved this sale deed. He has stated that Rukhmabai had put her thumb impression on the sale deed. He also states that