This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 15.11.1995 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 1992, thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed on 20.11.1991 in Special Civil Suit No.161 of 1985 by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur.

2. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, they are being hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in the order in which they were arrayed as parties to the suit). The facts of the case are stated briefly in the subsequent paragraphs.

3. Plaintiffs no.1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3) and plaintiff no.4 (respondent no.4) were respectively the sons and daughter of late Sheshrao Bhagwan Lohi, the brother of original defendant no.1 (original appellant no.1) deceased Balkrishna Lohi. Sheshrao and Balkrishna had one more brother named Narayan. The ancestral properties which had come into the hands of the brothers were amicably partitioned by them on 5.4.1951. In this partition, the house No. 100, new House No. 121, comprising a building of six Mayalis (rafters), five Tasmas (rooms) situated in Ward No. 24, Peth Budhwar, Katol, District Nagpur, more particularly described in the Schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit house), came to be allotted to Sheshrao, father of the plaintiffs, while the other properties were allotted to Balkrushna and Narayan. After the partition, father of the plaintiffs became the exclusive owners of the suit house and he continued to be in its undisturbed and peaceful possession till his death on 21.11.1984. After his death, plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased Sheshrao became the absolute owners of the suit house. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that when they were busy performing the last rites of deceased Sheshrao, on or about 23.11.1984, defendant no.1 Balkrishna forcibly obtained possession of the suit house. Therefore, notice was issued to him for vacating of the suit house, but in vain. Ultimately, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement. The defendants admitted the inter se relations between themselves and plaintiffs. They also admitted that Narayan was the third brother of defendant no.1. They submitted that Sheshrao died on 21.11.1984 not at Katol but at Sonkhamb. They admitted the partition having taken place by way of family arrangement on 5.4.1951 in which the suit house came to be allotted to Sheshrao. They submitted that the house that was allotted in the partition to Sheshrao bearing House No.100, consisted of two parts, bearing House No.100-A and 100-B. It was also submitted on their behalf that defendant no. 1 was already in possession of the House No. 100-A and Sheshrao was also in possession of the suit house of Mainabai, which house had been allotted to the share of defendant no.1 in partition and which was allowed to be retained by Sheshrao, and in addition to this, he was also given an amount of Rs.850/-. It was further submitted that thereafter House No.100-A was sold out by defendant no.1 and Sheshrao to one Shivaji Lohi but the consideration thereof was received by Sheshrao. It was further submitted that this house No.100-A no longer remained under the ownership of either the defendant no.1 or the plaintiffs. As regards House No.100-B, it was submitted that same was purchased by defendant no.1 from Sheshrao vide Sale-deed dated 13.2.1967. It was further submitted that the entire house no. 100, at the time of the suit, was out of ownership and possession of the plaintiffs or their father late Sheshrao and, therefore, there was no cause of action surviving at that time. Alternatively, it was submitted by defendant no.1 that he had become owner of the suit house by way of adverse possession, as he had been in possession of the suit house and assertin